That's the problem with the the argument. It equates actual tyranny with a perceived tyranny against a would-be tyrant. If both options are the same but one benefits literally everyone, it's really not much of a decision.
I mean tyranny of the majority is the real issue that happens in the world. This is just someone pretending that people find capital to start a business on the ground while taking a walk
"Tyranny of the Majority" isn't an actual thing anywhere.
For something to be tyranny, it MUST be the few enforcing their will over the wants of the majority. The majority can be unfair, discriminatory, violent, and even authoritarian, and it STILL won't be "tyranny" if most of those participating in it agree with how it's being run.
But the majority actually being any of those things is NEVER what's happening when someone complains about "Tyranny of the Majority".
It's a catch phrase used by people who hate the idea of not being able to force the majority to obey them. You'll note how little they seem to be concerned about any other kind of tyranny. And how disinterested or even hostile they are towards the idea of stopping a "tyranny of the majority" when the majority agrees with them.
I am not sure we are talking about same thing. Tyranny of the majority is a term used when talked about problems with democracy and forming of associations.
For example, me and my 2 friends open a book club and decide all members can democratically give their opinion on direction of bookclub. 5 new people come and decide that they will change it to video game club and in way changing the purpose of the space we created and pushing us out.
Ofc this is just an example, but I think it's especially important for leftists to know about this stuff cause our organizations can have these issues
Wrote it to another person so I'm just gonna copy paste the example.
For example, me and my 2 friends open a book club and decide all members can democratically give their opinion on direction of bookclub. 5 new people come and decide that they will change it to video game club and in way changing the purpose of the space we created and pushing us out.
Ofc this isn't only about fun organizations, but can and does happen in politics as well and when it does it usually means nullification of organizational building and even ruined reputation which can be impossible to completely patch
The way to prevent it is to have core rules which can't be changed. For example "This club is focused exclusively on books"
Or in case of political organization for example "We do not tolerate any form of harassment on basis of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, ect..."
LMAO! Young people in china are now overwhelmingly MORE marxist than the CPC. Nobody's agreeing with their white-ass takes. The only gusanos that fetishize "meritocracy" are boomers who go all surprised pikachu face when they can't afford healthcare in the US.
I don't think age has anything to do with it, but wealth.
It just happens that age and wealth intersect throughout history and we don't commonly recognize that people with wealth want to die with it.
Fruits from those that provided the capital and vision
The one who provided the capital overwhelmingly accumulated it through inheritance, prior exploitation, or access to credit systems that favor those already with assets. It is rarely the product of a lone genius's "sweat equity" in isolation from societal wealth.
And there is no vision without the collective labor to execute it. Just cause you provided capital or took a risk with money doesnt mean your rule is suddenly absolute and you have the right to claim the majority of the value created by workers.
No one is suggesting that the person who came up with the idea doesn't deserve something for it. Or that the person whose job it is to make "big picture" decisions shouldn't be compensated for it.
We're just opposed to the idea that either of those people is literally thousands of times more instrumental to generating value than everyone else. And opposed to the idea that they shouldn't be accountable to the people who are impacted by their decisions.
"If you like socialism so much, why not prove it works by opening a socialist business in an economic system that actively opposes socialist principles?"
Always annoyed by this take. It's basically "If you believe in veganism, why not open a vegan steakhouse?"
Explain how a business can make a profit without workers or wage theft OOP.
The braindead take that having democracy instead of autocracy in the work place is forced or bad is wild to me.
Oh no someone doesn't get to leech off your labor because they started the business! Oh nooooo.
Reminder this is a far-left, communist subreddit. Liberals fuck off.
Please pay special attention to our New Rule, Rule 12: Deface all right-wing memes. More info here
Also keep remembering to follow Rule 2 (No Liberalism) and Rule 7 (Spoiler Offensive Content)
We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! Click here to join today
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
'Tyranny of the majority' ass argument
Meanwhile, the bootlicking OOP neither-tacitly-nor-subtly supports minority rule by capitalists in capitalist-owned workplaces.
That's the problem with the the argument. It equates actual tyranny with a perceived tyranny against a would-be tyrant. If both options are the same but one benefits literally everyone, it's really not much of a decision.
I mean tyranny of the majority is the real issue that happens in the world. This is just someone pretending that people find capital to start a business on the ground while taking a walk
"Tyranny of the Majority" isn't an actual thing anywhere.
For something to be tyranny, it MUST be the few enforcing their will over the wants of the majority. The majority can be unfair, discriminatory, violent, and even authoritarian, and it STILL won't be "tyranny" if most of those participating in it agree with how it's being run.
But the majority actually being any of those things is NEVER what's happening when someone complains about "Tyranny of the Majority".
It's a catch phrase used by people who hate the idea of not being able to force the majority to obey them. You'll note how little they seem to be concerned about any other kind of tyranny. And how disinterested or even hostile they are towards the idea of stopping a "tyranny of the majority" when the majority agrees with them.
I am not sure we are talking about same thing. Tyranny of the majority is a term used when talked about problems with democracy and forming of associations. For example, me and my 2 friends open a book club and decide all members can democratically give their opinion on direction of bookclub. 5 new people come and decide that they will change it to video game club and in way changing the purpose of the space we created and pushing us out.
Ofc this is just an example, but I think it's especially important for leftists to know about this stuff cause our organizations can have these issues
What's an example of tyranny of the majority?
And in that situation, what are the alternatives?
Wrote it to another person so I'm just gonna copy paste the example. For example, me and my 2 friends open a book club and decide all members can democratically give their opinion on direction of bookclub. 5 new people come and decide that they will change it to video game club and in way changing the purpose of the space we created and pushing us out. Ofc this isn't only about fun organizations, but can and does happen in politics as well and when it does it usually means nullification of organizational building and even ruined reputation which can be impossible to completely patch
The way to prevent it is to have core rules which can't be changed. For example "This club is focused exclusively on books" Or in case of political organization for example "We do not tolerate any form of harassment on basis of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, ect..."
LMAO! Young people in china are now overwhelmingly MORE marxist than the CPC. Nobody's agreeing with their white-ass takes. The only gusanos that fetishize "meritocracy" are boomers who go all surprised pikachu face when they can't afford healthcare in the US.
I don't think that's really true. Older generations do tend to be more conservative but from what I see most young people are mildly socdem at best.
In China? I think this would make more sense if you're referring to Americans.
Ah shit. My bad I misread
I don't think age has anything to do with it, but wealth. It just happens that age and wealth intersect throughout history and we don't commonly recognize that people with wealth want to die with it.
Yeah definitely.
If liberal women are so ugly then why do they hide their conservative views to try to fuck them?
Dude I don’t even bother trying to put myself in the shoes of a conservative. Clown shoes are uncomfortable
I think most clown irl are probably progressive like they love kid regardless of race and gender so idk
There's even a Clown Code of Conduct that I'd argue mandates at least a moderate stance.
For example, wilfully misgendering someone would not create a 'joyful experience' and isn't acting with 'respect for each member of' the audience.
The one who provided the capital overwhelmingly accumulated it through inheritance, prior exploitation, or access to credit systems that favor those already with assets. It is rarely the product of a lone genius's "sweat equity" in isolation from societal wealth.
And there is no vision without the collective labor to execute it. Just cause you provided capital or took a risk with money doesnt mean your rule is suddenly absolute and you have the right to claim the majority of the value created by workers.
It's exactly this.
No one is suggesting that the person who came up with the idea doesn't deserve something for it. Or that the person whose job it is to make "big picture" decisions shouldn't be compensated for it.
We're just opposed to the idea that either of those people is literally thousands of times more instrumental to generating value than everyone else. And opposed to the idea that they shouldn't be accountable to the people who are impacted by their decisions.
"If you like socialism so much, why not prove it works by opening a socialist business in an economic system that actively opposes socialist principles?"
Always annoyed by this take. It's basically "If you believe in veganism, why not open a vegan steakhouse?"
“Forced majority rule” oh you mean like democracy? Like how the country is supposed to function? Dumbasses
Explain how a business can make a profit without workers or wage theft OOP. The braindead take that having democracy instead of autocracy in the work place is forced or bad is wild to me.
Oh no someone doesn't get to leech off your labor because they started the business! Oh nooooo.
why did they make her look like nova online
Forced majority rule RULEZ!
This meme was verified by True Small Business Tyrants.
Whatever one thinks of either socialism or capitalisn, it's too bad we can only pick from imperfect systems a frameworks created before we were born.
Nothing new can be created or attempted, them's the rules.
Genuine question: Did you intend your 2nd statement to be sarcastic?
The whole thing was sarcastic, sorry. I'm spending too much time in circle jerk subs.
Thanks for making it clear!
Boot lickers will find every angle possible to lick a boot
They denounce both majority and minority rule, but never propose other methods of legislating or executing that legislation.