Are the masses sheep?

[Milk Sheikh]

That's what many people say. They give instances like Russia; people were religious when the ruling class was religious. Once socialists came to power, people became socialists and their religion disappeared.

The same story everywhere. Masses simply follow the ruling class; if the govt. says certain people are terrorists, they faithfully follow. No questions!

Doesn't this prove the common refrain - only workers can represent workers - wrong? How can workers, by themselves, do that? Isn't a vanguard inevitable?

Milk Sheikh

[ZeroNowhere]

The Bolsheviks (and the Tsar and Kerensky) would have loved it if such were the case, as would the French government back in the 1870s.

[ComradeMan]

Proletariat in a strict sense is not synonymous with masses and Marx wasn't talking about the masses, at his time of writing the urban, industrialised proletariat were still forming and were not a majority, or so I believe.

[Bud Struggle]

Are the masses sheep? That was Nietzsche point he said people were either sheep or hawks. Some animals are naturally herd animals--so are some people. They gather together for protection (unions? Communism?) They follow the leader (even the Judas sheep at times.) They don't think--they react in fear and huddle together. Further: it's is how you are. There is little you can do about it. Most people are like this. They tend to passivity, dependence, meekness. It is natural for them to stick together for a sense of security, just as herd animals do.

But in the world there are also a few hawks who live by strength, creativity, independence, assertiveness, and related traits. They respect power, courage, boldness, risk-taking, even recklessness. It is natural for them to follow their own path no matter what, to rebel against social pressure and conformity.

[Hit The North]

That's what many people say. They give instances like Russia; people were religious when the ruling class was religious. Once socialists came to power, people became socialists and their religion disappeared.


Except this is untrue, as religious belief and practice remained among the Russian people, even under periods of state repression of the Church. At best, these sentiments were merely driven underground.


The same story everywhere. Masses simply follow the ruling class; if the govt. says certain people are terrorists, they faithfully follow. No questions!

You would need to ignore the criticism and cynicism felt by millions toward the rhetoric of their political leaders, in order to believe this. Sure, this criticism may be a minority position, after all, as Marx argued, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. Nevertheless, if this was an absolute law, then radical movements and revolts against rulers would never happen.

What you need to understand is that ideas are rooted in the material social lives of peoples. When their material circumstances change - such as economic crisis - then ideas change to meet the changing circumstances. In the case of religion in the Soviet Union, it is precisely because the people continued to live in alienated conditions, that alienated forms of consciousness could survive and have an intellectual "life" among the people.

Of course, the notion that "people are sheep" or, more accurately, are likely to follow leaders, has some purchase in class society, simply because class society is organised like that and people are a product of their society. But this only highlights one aspect of the human historical experience.

[balaclava]

That was Nietzsche point he said people were either sheep or hawks.

It’s not (IMHO) a simple question of sheep and hawks. There appears to some consistent traits within human beings that inclines them towards a desire to conform and thus open to the label ‘sheep.’ Of course we are talking about the majority of people (the masses) and of course there is also a minority who are inclined not to conform (!!).

If you look at the fundamentals – what behaviour is ‘right and what is wrong’, what is ‘good and what is bad’ you would think that there would be some absolutes but it appears there is not and the answer is simply what the majority believe is good/bad etc., and what they believe tends to be what they were taught and what those around them believe.

[Hit The North]

That was Nietzsche point he said people were either sheep or hawks. Some animals are naturally herd animals--so are some people. They gather together for protection (unions? Communism?) They follow the leader (even the Judas sheep at times.) They don't think--they react in fear and huddle together. Further: it's is how you are. There is little you can do about it. Most people are like this. They tend to passivity, dependence, meekness. It is natural for them to stick together for a sense of security, just as herd animals do.

But in the world there are also a few hawks who live by strength, creativity, independence, assertiveness, and related traits. They respect power, courage, boldness, risk-taking, even recklessness. It is natural for them to follow their own path no matter what, to rebel against social pressure and conformity.

Given the above, I'm always amazed that Nietzsche's ideas are at all taken seriously. We could equally argue that the so-called "hawks", in this case, the capitalists, "gather together for protection": therefore, the armed political state, the judiciary, the corporation. In an unstable mode of production, the "hawks" need protection from the discontented "sheep".

[RGacky3]

That's what many people say. They give instances like Russia; people were religious when the ruling class was religious. Once socialists came to power, people became socialists and their religion disappeared.

The same story everywhere. Masses simply follow the ruling class; if the govt. says certain people are terrorists, they faithfully follow. No questions!

Doesn't this prove the common refrain - only workers can represent workers - wrong? How can workers, by themselves, do that? Isn't a vanguard inevitable?

Milk Sheikh


No because thats not the case, as was mentioned religion did'nt drop that much under communism, it was still practiced significaltly.

If you take the official line which is the line given by the ruling class you'd thinkg that. If you take the official line you'd think that all AMericans are pro-Capitalist as a rule (i.e. principles not the word), you'd also think that all Soviets were atheists, you'd think that all Chineese are authoritarian types. It has nothing to do with that.

You can tell that by how attitudes seam to change so quickly when regeims change, attitudes did'nt change, they don't change that quickly, what changes is the ruling class line, when the propeganda aparatus collapses reality comes out.

[Havet]

The same story everywhere. Masses simply follow the ruling class; if the govt. says certain people are terrorists, they faithfully follow. No questions!

baaaaa?

[Bud Struggle]

It’s not (IMHO) a simple question of sheep and hawks. There appears to some consistent traits within human beings that inclines them towards a desire to conform and thus open to the label ‘sheep.’ Of course we are talking about the majority of people (the masses) and of course there is also a minority who are inclined not to conform (!!).

If you look at the fundamentals – what behaviour is ‘right and what is wrong’, what is ‘good and what is bad’ you would think that there would be some absolutes but it appears there is not and the answer is simply what the majority believe is good/bad etc., and what they believe tends to be what they were taught and what those around them believe.



Of course. And Nietzsche's further when on to say that wht the sheep did was impose a uniform arbatrary morality--and included the hawks in that morality. And that morality was religion and government. The hawk was tade to feel bad that he killed and followed his impulses. All creatures were God's and God forbade killing.

There is no absolute morality for Nietzsche--beyond following your passions. So the sheep really curtailed the hawk in his own personal morality.

[Bud Struggle]

Given the above, I'm always amazed that Nietzsche's ideas are at all taken seriously. We could equally argue that the so-called "hawks", in this case, the capitalists, "gather together for protection": therefore, the armed political state, the judiciary, the corporation. In an unstable mode of production, the "hawks" need protection from the discontented "sheep".

Good point--and also on an invidual basis there is nothing more "sheepish" than a Capitalist with all his money invested in mutual funds.

[ComradeMan]

Good point--and also on an invidual basis there is nothing more "sheepish" than a Capitalist with all his money invested in mutual funds.

Is it not perhaps our "ape" nature... to be part of the troop?

[Revolution starts with U]

As humans, social creatures, we can all engage in so called "sheepism." Really that has no meaning. What people adopt other's ideas if they think they are good... and you want to call that outright bad?
What if you're a sheep for being anti-war? What if you're sheeping for no rape?
That's "human nature." Sometimes you do your own thing, sometimes what the crowd does. And no one in history has ever ever EVER been all sheep, or all wolf.
We are all human.

[Dimentio]

That was Nietzsche point he said people were either sheep or hawks. Some animals are naturally herd animals--so are some people. They gather together for protection (unions? Communism?) They follow the leader (even the Judas sheep at times.) They don't think--they react in fear and huddle together. Further: it's is how you are. There is little you can do about it. Most people are like this. They tend to passivity, dependence, meekness. It is natural for them to stick together for a sense of security, just as herd animals do.

But in the world there are also a few hawks who live by strength, creativity, independence, assertiveness, and related traits. They respect power, courage, boldness, risk-taking, even recklessness. It is natural for them to follow their own path no matter what, to rebel against social pressure and conformity.

I'm a kitty. :p

Often, I just like to observe the world, sometimes wantin' a scratch behind my ear. Scratch me behind my ear and I start to purr, literally.

[Revolution starts with U]

Technically tho Comrade, Orangutans don't have a troop. But I still get, and like, your point.

[Hit The North]

Scratch me behind my ear and I start to purr, literally.

That's, like, too much information.

[Bud Struggle]

That's, like, too much information.

On another thread I belief he said he has dandruff, too. :blink:

[Ele'ill]

The same story everywhere. Masses simply follow the ruling class; if the govt. says certain people are terrorists, they faithfully follow. No questions!

There was a lot of questioning and violent confrontation with the state surrounding 'terrorism' and both wars. The issue is that given the power and level of control over the general populations the people are forced into a position of servitude with the illusion of choice and freedom to the point that even the houseless cannot simply sleep on a sidewalk in most cities without being harassed or arrested. Being locked in a cage doesn't mean you aren't fierce it means you don't have a choice at the moment.

[Hit The North]

On another thread I belief he said he has dandruff, too. :blink:
Dirty, dirty, dirty :blushing:

[Rafiq]

Naturally, no, of course not.

But in many cases, especially where I live, yes, the masses are sheep-like. Though it isn't as simple as "First in Russia, they were sheep, but then, everyone became a socialist and stopped being sheep". No, it's much more complicated than that.