Legitimacy

[Dimentio]

I have come to the belief that the most important thing for any rulers is to build on some form of myth, to give them legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

You cannot rule people through force only, you need something to justify your usage of force.

Maybe you have been chosen by god? Maybe you are a god? Or you have a better understanding of history? Or you provide "economic growth"? Or you are good and tolerant and everyone who are against you are evil and intolerant?

Most revolutionary situations have been established when an old elite loses all traces of legitimacy.

The revolutionaries themselves has often not had overwhelming popular support, but the general political apathy has allowed them to establish a new regime, maybe supported by a new social class or emerging social classes.

I think that most people generally are complacent with whomever who are ruling as long as they have an employment, a personal space and room to cultivate their family and their interests.

Do you think the same?

[robbo203]

I have come to the belief that the most important thing for any rulers is to build on some form of myth, to give them legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

You cannot rule people through force only, you need something to justify your usage of force.

Maybe you have been chosen by god? Maybe you are a god? Or you have a better understanding of history? Or you provide "economic growth"? Or you are good and tolerant and everyone who are against you are evil and intolerant?

Most revolutionary situations have been established when an old elite loses all traces of legitimacy.

The revolutionaries themselves has often not had overwhelming popular support, but the general political apathy has allowed them to establish a new regime, maybe supported by a new social class or emerging social classes.

I think that most people generally are complacent with whomever who are ruling as long as they have an employment, a personal space and room to cultivate their family and their interests.

Do you think the same?


I think you make some reasonable points here. States need legitimacy like we need oxygen. They cannot survive very long without it. Look at the collapse of state capitalism in the Eastern bloc when the masses withdrew their consent to be governed in this way

This has repercussions - the most important of which is that the socialist revolution which some of us want to bring about has to entail the mass consent and understanding of the working class. When enough workers understand and want socialism,. the writing is on the wall for capitalism and its state machine

[Post-Something]

I have come to the belief that the most important thing for any rulers is to build on some form of myth, to give them legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

You cannot rule people through force only, you need something to justify your usage of force.

Maybe you have been chosen by god? Maybe you are a god? Or you have a better understanding of history? Or you provide "economic growth"? Or you are good and tolerant and everyone who are against you are evil and intolerant?

Most revolutionary situations have been established when an old elite loses all traces of legitimacy.

The revolutionaries themselves has often not had overwhelming popular support, but the general political apathy has allowed them to establish a new regime, maybe supported by a new social class or emerging social classes.

I think that most people generally are complacent with whomever who are ruling as long as they have an employment, a personal space and room to cultivate their family and their interests.

Do you think the same?

Actually, you are 100% correct :)

The state, contrary to the orthodox Marxist view, needs first to justify it's existence to the majority of those whom it controls, before it is able to act on economic interest. Gramsci wrote quite a bit on this particular topic, and is the reason why his rendition of cultural hegemony is different to that of Lenins'.

One of the most important ideas in contemporary Marxist analysis as I see it, is to be able to identify this complacency amongst the populace, and without attributing it entirely to economics, actively go about countering it by offering alternatives and showing inconsistencies within a capitalist framework.

[Lynx]

Talk about 'change' and get yourself elected. A prime example of Legitimacy 101

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think this is correct, but the other side of the coin is that regimes need to also convince the population that there is no alternative, in the words of Thatcher. This is why radicals always have a tougher time even if they are fighting for the same reforms as liberals.

In feudalism, part of the formula was divine right, but the other half was that not only did god decide who the king was he also decided that you were going to be a serf forever. No peasants in Feudalism ever thought they could till the soil really really hard and become the noble Duke of this or that.

In our time, we constantly hear from the establishment that the working class is too unfit and too ignorant to run things. "Jerry Springer" is the secret weapon of the ruling class.

[Hoxhaist]

This sounds quite right!! As long as the people are told that the elite have the same interests as them and arent only in it for themselves then the people will just sip coffee at Starbucks and lay on the coach watching American Idol

[Jimmie Higgins]

Most revolutionary situations have been established when an old elite loses all traces of legitimacy.

The revolutionaries themselves has often not had overwhelming popular support, but the general political apathy has allowed them to establish a new regime, maybe supported by a new social class or emerging social classes.

I agree for the most part with what you are saying, but I think the "apathy" part of your argument is incorrect. I don't really think there is such a thing as apathy, just alienation from society. People in modern society may seem apathetic, but it's really that they feel they don't have any say or control over the way society is run.

Were slaves that were not having revolts "apathetic" or were they simply terrorized and stuck between a rock and a hard place? They were separated into groups on plantations which made all out revolution almost impossible because you could only organize on your own plantation. They weren't apathetic, they were made to feel that there was no alternative other than just running away or dealing with things as they were.

In the French and Russian revolutions there was a great deal of popular support and this is what made them possible. You are correct that both these revolutions were not unanimously supported. In both cases, the French bourgeois and the Russian workers had to convince the peasantry that these classes would make a better society than the old one. If they had hoped for apathy, then the countryside would have become a breeding found for the counter-revolution.

[Dimentio]

I agree for the most part with what you are saying, but I think the "apathy" part of your argument is incorrect. I don't really think there is such a thing as apathy, just alienation from society. People in modern society may seem apathetic, but it's really that they feel they don't have any say or control over the way society is run.

Were slaves that were not having revolts "apathetic" or were they simply terrorized and stuck between a rock and a hard place? They were separated into groups on plantations which made all out revolution almost impossible because you could only organize on your own plantation. They weren't apathetic, they were made to feel that there was no alternative other than just running away or dealing with things as they were.

In the French and Russian revolutions there was a great deal of popular support and this is what made them possible. You are correct that both these revolutions were not unanimously supported. In both cases, the French bourgeois and the Russian workers had to convince the peasantry that these classes would make a better society than the old one. If they had hoped for apathy, then the countryside would have become a breeding found for the counter-revolution.

At least in France, entire departments rose up in support for the monarchy. These revolts consisted mostly of peasants.

[Dimentio]

I think the main goal for radicals should be to paint the powers that be as radicals, while painting themselves as legitimate interprepators of reality.

[JimmyJazz]

One of the few areas of Psychology that still interests me (it's what I have a degree in, for some reason) is the Psychology of Legitimacy. The main guy doing it is John Jost at NYU. If you go to a university and have library privileges, you can search for him on a professional articles database. There's a book (http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Legitimacy-Perspectives-Intergroup-Relations/dp/0521786991) now too.

You could find a lot that pertains to it in any intro social psych text book as well, although it wouldn't go under the name of "psych of legitimacy" (more likely it would be under headings such as "Persuasion"), and obviously a lot of interesting stuff about public opinion has been written by people in the Political Science field (here (http://www.amazon.com/News-That-Matters-Television-Political/dp/0226388573) is one cool example), but if you want cutting edge stuff, then look at John Jost and the people who he draws to himself.


Maybe you have been chosen by god? Maybe you are a god? Or you have a better understanding of history? Or you provide "economic growth"? Or you are good and tolerant and everyone who are against you are evil and intolerant?

Yeah. I think the most effective thing is usually to have an argument prepared for why your system has every possible good trait--even opposites. That way, when one is called into question, you focus on the other. So, for example, capitalism is great because it gives everyone an opportunity to succeed; capitalism is great because it weeds out the unproductive losers. America is great because it's a democracy and the people can choose whatever they want; America is great because its a Constitutional Republic and the people can't just change everything on their whims. Socialism is bad because it's evil and oppressive; socialism is bad because it's paternalistic and utopian. Etc. It sounds unbelievably dishonest, and it is, but even honest people do it without thinking after a lifetime of hearing these arguments and unconsciously rehearsing them.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If you haven't read it already, I'd recommend The Prince by Machiavelli, he delves into similar political questions (not that I agree with everything he wrote, mind you).

[Dimentio]

If you haven't read it already, I'd recommend The Prince by Machiavelli, he delves into similar political questions (not that I agree with everything he wrote, mind you).

Machiavelli focuses more about how to act as a power-broker within the feudal system of Europe. Despite that, politics is still largely the same, despite that we nowadays have parliamentarism, rule by law, elections and capitalism.

[MarxSchmarx]

At the end of the day, doesn't this all come down to convincing working people that they need to run their own affairs?

What do you think a discourse on legitimacy uniquely adds to, say, classical leftist understandings of worker's self-determination and community self-management?

[Jimmie Higgins]

At the end of the day, doesn't this all come down to convincing working people that they need to run their own affairs?

What do you think a discourse on legitimacy uniquely adds to, say, classical leftist understandings of worker's self-determination and community self-management?

Well people often aren't convinced that they can do this. Look at strikes: one day the mood could be militant and people are saying "we don't need a boss" and then confidence is crushed and the next day people want the union to settle and beg for forgiveness.

In the French Revolution, the peasants were not convinced that getting rid of the landlords would be a good thing because they feared that if the revolution didn't win, they would be punished and things would be worse than before. So the peasants could obviously grow crops without the aristocracy if they had the land, (and they most likely hated feudal conditions) but they needed to be convinced that the Bourgeois Revolution could last.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well people often aren't convinced that they can do this. Look at strikes: one day the mood could be militant and people are saying "we don't need a boss" and then confidence is crushed and the next day people want the union to settle and beg for forgiveness.

In the French Revolution, the peasants were not convinced that getting rid of the landlords would be a good thing because they feared that if the revolution didn't win, they would be punished and things would be worse than before. So the peasants could obviously grow crops without the aristocracy if they had the land, (and they most likely hated feudal conditions) but they needed to be convinced that the Bourgeois Revolution could last.

All this is fine, but where does the question of legitimacy fit in?

[Jimmie Higgins]

All this is fine, but where does the question of legitimacy fit in?

I was looking at "legitimacy" in the sense of the working class having hegemony and rallying other classes to its side in a revolution. In heavily industrial areas the working class rule will have to be seen as legitimate by the non-working poor as well as professionals otherwise these groups might become breeding grounds for recruiting people to counter-revolution.

[MarxSchmarx]

I was looking at "legitimacy" in the sense of the working class having hegemony and rallying other classes to its side in a revolution. In heavily industrial areas the working class rule will have to be seen as legitimate by the non-working poor as well as professionals otherwise these groups might become breeding grounds for recruiting people to counter-revolution.

I guess what I was getting at is that once the "working class has hegemony" and is "rallying other classes to its side", is there really any question of legitimacy? Does working class rule, at that point, need any extra standard to "legitimate" its rule? Hasn't it already gone a long way in doing so viz. establishing cultural hegemony and, better yet, uniting other classes under its cause?

In short, what is the unique element that "legitimacy" brings in at this stage?

[Dimentio]

I guess what I was getting at is that once the "working class has hegemony" and is "rallying other classes to its side", is there really any question of legitimacy? Does working class rule, at that point, need any extra standard to "legitimate" its rule? Hasn't it already gone a long way in doing so viz. establishing cultural hegemony and, better yet, uniting other classes under its cause?

In short, what is the unique element that "legitimacy" brings in at this stage?

The working class must be convinced it has the right to rule.