Tyranny of the Majority

[Jason]

Communism claims to be "for the people". However, in some nations, communists would disregard the people. For instance, Americans and other 1st world peoples have been bought off by imperalism. Therefore, thier wants and needs are selfish and destructive when put in a global context. Does anyone agree?

Another example of "majority tyranny" would have been the "Jim Crow" in the south. Obviously southern whites were the majority in this case, but many people don't respect thier wishes (as racism is seen by many to immoral).

[hetz]

For instance, Americans and other 1st world peoples have been bought off by imperalism.
Why don't these mysterious powers that bought whole peoples off at least make a donation to revleft, after all most members here are from the First World. :laugh:

[Jason]

Why don't these mysterious powers that bought whole peoples off at least make a donation to revleft, after all most members here are from the First World. :laugh:

Yeah, it seems like people could donate at least a dollar. Are there any "limousine liberals" like Michael Moore or Sean Penn on here? :D

[PigmerikanMao]

In a global context, one could argue that the bulk of the American (and other first world labour force) is dependent off of a parasitic/imperialist relationship with those in the third world and therefore, while constituting proletarians for the fact that they are still reduced to selling their labour to survive and control no means of production, are not in any revolutionary situation and work to serve (and protect) bourgeois imperialist interests. Communists that hold this view on the labour aristocracy are called thirdworldists, and usually catch a lot of flack on here because the majority of members on this board are from the first world... who figured.

Also- just a tidbit of knowledge, but there is a sizable majority of African-Americans in many southern counties in which Jim Crow laws and slavery were prevalent. In fact many segregation laws that prevented African Americans from voting following the Civil War up until the 1970s were seen as essential because they constituted such a high level of the population.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif

^Edit: I mean Jesus, just look at South Carolina!

[Jason]

In a global context, one could argue that the bulk of the American (and other first world labour force) is dependent off of a parasitic/imperialist relationship with those in the third world and therefore, while constituting proletarians for the fact that they are still reduced to selling their labour to survive and control no means of production, are not in any revolutionary situation and work to serve (and protect) bourgeois imperialist interests. Communists that hold this view on the labour aristocracy are called thirdworldists, and usually catch a lot of flack on here because the majority of members on this board are from the first world... who figured.

Also- just a tidbit of knowledge, but there is a sizable majority of African-Americans in many southern counties in which Jim Crow laws and slavery were prevalent. In fact many segregation laws that prevented African Americans from voting following the Civil War up until the 1970s were seen as essential because they constituted such a high level of the population.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif

^Edit: I mean Jesus, just look at South Carolina!

Right, I agree, when you watch movies like "Mississippi Burning", you wonder why the whites were SO angry about blacks voting. Because - It wasn't really about racism, it was about political control.

You can see even today, that most southern whites are Fox News Republicans (look at the "Chick Fil a" protests), and most blacks are democrats. In addition, whites have always been visously opposed to any form of social justice or wealth redistribution, but blacks are the total opposite.

All in all, whites wanted blacks to stay as a cheap labour source (in the past), but they didn't want them having political rights (for reasons stated above).



In a global context, one could argue that the bulk of the American (and other first world labour force) is dependent off of a parasitic/imperialist relationship with those in the third world and therefore, while constituting proletarians for the fact that they are still reduced to selling their labour to survive and control no means of production, are not in any revolutionary situation and work to serve (and protect) bourgeois imperialist interests.


Well, what else can they do? For one thing, they don't know thier oppressed. Even some that do recognize oppression go toward right wing radical movements as an answer.

[PigmerikanMao]

Also, it helps if you dont refer to them as "the blacks." :confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

Mods feel free to move this or PigmerikanMao reply via PM.


In a global context, one could argue that the bulk of the American (and other first world labour force) is dependent off of a parasitic/imperialist relationship with those in the third world and therefore, while constituting proletarians for the fact that they are still reduced to selling their labour to survive and control no means of production, are not in any revolutionary situation and work to serve (and protect) bourgeois imperialist interests. Communists that hold this view on the labour aristocracy are called thirdworldists, and usually catch a lot of flack on here because the majority of members on this board are from the first world... who figured.

Also- just a tidbit of knowledge, but there is a sizable majority of African-Americans in many southern counties in which Jim Crow laws and slavery were prevalent. In fact many segregation laws that prevented African Americans from voting following the Civil War up until the 1970s were seen as essential because they constituted such a high level of the population.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif

^Edit: I mean Jesus, just look at South Carolina!

Oh wow, a real Third Worldist. I have so many questions.

Imperialism isn't a linear line. In the thread about Chavez we see someone insisting Iran is not anti-imperialist as if we can singularly categorise countries as such. A country could be a puppet of an imperialist country (category 1), an imperialist country in its own right (category 2), and subject to imperialist aggression (category 3). For instance, if we highly exaggerate the influence of Russia on Iran we could say Iran is a Russian puppet (it isn't, but for the sake of argument let's say it is); it's also under attack by Israel and US; it's exerting influence in Syria through armed assistance of Syria and Hezbollah. So Iran would in this scenario fall in all three categories. How would that relate to Third Worldist theory?

Additionally, what countries are Third and First world? Libya was higher developed than Bulgaria and Romania in 2011 according to the Human Development Index. Would that automatically make it a first world country with complementary imperialist-status?

Europe is generally seen as First World and Latin America as the Thirld World, yet if we use the Human Development Index we find that most of Latin America would qualify as "first."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/2011_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.sv g

The two darkest shades of blue would then be the first world. That seems to contradict Third Worldism, doesn't it?

[Jason]

Also, it helps if you dont refer to them as "the blacks." :confused:

Articles (the) have been removed.

[PigmerikanMao]

Oh wow, a real Third Worldist. I have so many questions.

There are reasons a lot of us are in hiding... :lol:


Imperialism isn't a linear line. [...] Iran is not anti-imperialist as if we can singularly categorize countries as such.

Behind any action of a state, there exists a contextual circumstance for the reasons of that action. They can fall into aggressive and defensive justifications, so while an action may be seen as imperialistic depending on the critic, if the action is largely for defensive purposes, it can also be seen as not imperialistic. There are limitations to this theory, however, as it should be quite obvious that America's "defensive war" against, and "liberation" of, Iraq was entirely imperialist. The same goes for innumerable attacks by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people, for example. Certainly imperialist and non imperialist is not a black and white issue, and there exists an immense grey area when attempting to classify an entire national body, but various tendencies of a state help.


A country could be a puppet of an imperialist country, an imperialist country in its own right, and subject to imperialist aggression. For instance, if we highly exaggerate the influence of Russia on Iran we could say Iran is a Russian puppet (it isn't, but for the sake of argument let's say it is).

Iran in some capacities is influenced heavily by Russia, so I could actually see the argument. That being said, I think a better example may have been Georgia, but we can go with Iran for the sake of a more simple/direct discussion.


It's also under attack by Israel and US; it's exerting influence in Syria through armed assistance of Syria and Hezbollah. So Iran would in this scenario fall in all three categories. How would that relate to Third Worldist theory?

Iran's involvement in Syria and Lebanon, while definitely putting in Iran in a sphere where it is influencing domestic affairs of other nations, does not inherently mean that it is imperialist. By this definition of imperialist, any nation that uses its capital or political position to levy another state would be imperialist- this is a little extreme. Iran's actions in the Middle East at worst are pan-Islamic, reactionary, and invasive, but not inherently imperialist. Iran is not benefiting extensively monetarily through Hezbollah or the Syrian government (in fact supporting them is in all likelihood costing them capital). Also, if you really wanted to push the issue, agents of the FSA could be seen as puppets of the first world (not saying they are) and in this Iran is hypothetically assisting Syria in its right to sovereignty and independence from first world influence... hypothetically.

Furthermore, if we allow for Russia's immense political influence in Iran, this still doesn't put Iran in to the second world camp. To qualify for the second world, the state in question must also benefit from serving the first world. Simply being influenced by the first world yet not yielding significant benefits is an issue faced by most third world nations, actually. Iran, then, would be an influential state in the third world, but still not in the first or second. A good example of the second world would be states who's standard of living was assisted greatly by the first world either presently or in the past (i.e. segments of post-war Western Europe and Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc).


Additionally, what countries are Third and First world? Libya was higher developed than Bulgaria and Romania in 2011 according to the Human Development Index. Europe is generally seen as First World and Latin America as the Thirld World, yet if we use the Human Development Index we find that most of Latin America would qualify as "first."

This is all very interesting, and is something proletarian members of the first world should consider in regards to their relationship with both the bourgeois class as well as the third world they serve to oppress, but Human Development and affluence do not determine one's position in the scale. A nation can be rich through the exploitation of its own natural resources- what makes a nation a member of the first world (through Mao's categorization), what makes a nation imperialistic, is how it obtains it affluence.

Did Argentina or Libya reach a higher level on the Human development index through exploitation of other nations, coercion of political puppets, or outright wars of aggression? No. So they are not in the (Maoist) First world. It is important here to distinguish between the contemporary first and third worlds commonly alluded to in popular media and the Maoist First, Second, and Third worlds.



[Images Omitted]
The two darkest shades of blue would then be the first world. That seems to contradict Third Worldism, doesn't it?

Aside from some members of South America, the darkest blue shade does a relatively phenomenal job of outlining the boundaries of the first world, actually.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Communism claims to be "for the people". However, in some nations, communists would disregard the people. For instance, Americans and other 1st world peoples have been bought off by imperalism. Therefore, thier wants and needs are selfish and destructive when put in a global context. Does anyone agree?If the US population was "bought-off" on imperialism, why would the US have had to use covert means after Vietnam and why does it always hide it's support for Israel or arguments for invasions behind rehtoric of "Peacekeeping" "Spreading Democracy" "Humanitarian Aid"?

I think the phenomena that you are describing is basic mixed consiousness and/or jingoism which is different than having a material interest as "bought-off" and concepts like "labor aristocracy" (when applied to a whole regional working class, not to social-democratic beurocrats) imply.

Certaintly many people in the US accept the propaganda about the US military "keeping the world safe" but it's propaganda and a superficial level of support from the population - a level of support that doesn't hold up beyond limited US military involvement historically.

But even if pentagon and US forign policy really were up to people in the US - first of all I doubt they would vote to fund the military machine over schools and social security, so right there there would be some conflicts if there were actual "tyranny (rule) of the majority (or at least just real popular votes on things that mattered)". Second, even if people kept the same basic positions, is it US people saber rattling for US interventions unprovoked, or is it always efforts from the top to create fear of a threat (a smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud) and a bunch of racist and hysterical propaganda that then convince people that "we must support the troops!". So it's not so much "tyranny of the majority" as "ruling class hegemony" that's the problem.

"Tyranny of the majority" would be a much better situation for the rest of the world as the majority in the US would probably want to use all those resources for things other than the military.


Another example of "majority tyranny" would have been the "Jim Crow" in the south. Obviously southern whites were the majority in this case, but many people don't respect thier wishes (as racism is seen by many to immoral).Again, Jim-Crow was an effort to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" by the eliete minority (or prevent "negro domination" as they called it). Jim-Crow has disenfrancizement built-into it's policies and practice and it led to the disenfrancizement of poor blacks as well as whites. Restrictive laws and white terror were also used against the Populist movement in the south that made steps towards buiding some resistance to Southern racism.

I think often when you hear people in the mainstream talk of "the tyranny of the majority", if you scratch the surface, it's really just an apology for the tyranny of the minority. This isn't to say there aren't a lot of fucked up ideas out there in the class, but these are not inherent or fundamental and actual popular and democratic exchanges would at least bring them out of the bourgoise arena where they could be more openly challenged.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Tyranny of the majority" would be a much better situation for the rest of the world as the majority in the US would probably want to use all those resources for things other than the military.

Oh and all this above is in the abstract: as if consciousness was like it is currently in the US but suddenly there was a much more open democracy.

If we are talking about a revolutionary society then I think many of the specific examples of anti-working class seniment among workers themselves would have necessarily been significantly addressed in some way. I don't think you can have a successful working class revolutionary movement of people who also want to maintain Jim-Crow. Consciousness changes in new conditions and it changes very rapidly in periods of struggle and certainty in revolutions.

[MarxSchmarx]

If the US population was "bought-off" on imperialism, why would the US have had to use covert means after Vietnam and why does it always hide it's support for Israel or arguments for invasions behind rehtoric of "Peacekeeping" "Spreading Democracy" "Humanitarian Aid"?

I think the phenomena that you are describing is basic mixed consiousness and/or jingoism which is different than having a material interest as "bought-off" and concepts like "labor aristocracy" (when applied to a whole regional working class, not to social-democratic beurocrats) imply.

Certaintly many people in the US accept the propaganda about the US military "keeping the world safe" but it's propaganda and a superficial level of support from the population - a level of support that doesn't hold up beyond limited US military involvement historically.

But even if pentagon and US forign policy really were up to people in the US - first of all I doubt they would vote to fund the military machine over schools and social security, so right there there would be some conflicts if there were actual "tyranny (rule) of the majority (or at least just real popular votes on things that mattered)". Second, even if people kept the same basic positions, is it US people saber rattling for US interventions unprovoked, or is it always efforts from the top to create fear of a threat (a smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud) and a bunch of racist and hysterical propaganda that then convince people that "we must support the troops!". So it's not so much "tyranny of the majority" as "ruling class hegemony" that's the problem.


While I agree that the whole "first worlders bought off by imperialism" thing is off, the rest of your analysis is belied by this point:


always efforts from the top to create fear of a threat (a smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud) and a bunch of racist and hysterical propaganda that then convince people that "we must support the troops!"

The issue to me is why this propaganda has worked so well, so persistently, for centuries. The examples of "superficial" internal support for american military intervention are also often when america is losing; when america is winning, as it did in the first gulf war, there is very little serious opposition from the majority.

This kind of ruling class fearmongering works so well when the country as a whole is taken into consideration. Some of that is a reflection of fearmongering past, but it also to me indicates there's something deeply problematic about american culture that makes it so effective.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The issue to me is why this propaganda has worked so well, so persistently, for centuries. The examples of "superficial" internal support for american military intervention are also often when america is losing; when america is winning, as it did in the first gulf war, there is very little serious opposition from the majority.

This kind of ruling class fearmongering works so well when the country as a whole is taken into consideration. Some of that is a reflection of fearmongering past, but it also to me indicates there's something deeply problematic about american culture that makes it so effective.

I honestly don't see that much of a qualitative difference beween wartime jingoism in the US and other similar capitalist countries.

There was a degree of opposition in the US to the first gulf-war, but it was also a very limited intervention which gave very little time for an opposition to organize and little time for the war-propaganda to begin to be exposed as false during the actual conflict. I think tellingly, there was LESS opposition to the US policy towards Iraq after the battles and even less opposition to Clinton-lead interventions.

I think this, not "American culture" is the reason jingoistic propaganda is effective in the US: that the Democrats and Republicans close ranks when it comes to forign policy. Opposition on the streets is hard to organize and slow to mobilize and hard to convince because we have no real permanent set of organized politics opposed to US imperialism. All the people who tend to become anti-war are generally workers, students, and the middle class who are either apolitical or Democratic party supporters before the conflict. Because of this, while the US government, military, and media, are a solid front of pro-war propaganda (who also plan for years in advance, have tons of contingancy plans, and tons of resources at their disposal), anti-war forces are scattered and politically diffuse and confused - this makes the pro-war voices automatically stronger and more dominant and more confident intitially --- but I don't think it means that people in the US are any more or less suceptable to propaganda and ruling class ideas than any other population.

[MarxSchmarx]

I honestly don't see that much of a qualitative difference beween wartime jingoism in the US and other similar capitalist countries.

There was a degree of opposition in the US to the first gulf-war, but it was also a very limited intervention which gave very little time for an opposition to organize and little time for the war-propaganda to begin to be exposed as false during the actual conflict. I think tellingly, there was LESS opposition to the US policy towards Iraq after the battles and even less opposition to Clinton-lead interventions.

I think this, not "American culture" is the reason jingoistic propaganda is effective in the US: that the Democrats and Republicans close ranks when it comes to forign policy. Opposition on the streets is hard to organize and slow to mobilize and hard to convince because we have no real permanent set of organized politics opposed to US imperialism. All the people who tend to become anti-war are generally workers, students, and the middle class who are either apolitical or Democratic party supporters before the conflict. Because of this, while the US government, military, and media, are a solid front of pro-war propaganda (who also plan for years in advance, have tons of contingancy plans, and tons of resources at their disposal), anti-war forces are scattered and politically diffuse and confused - this makes the pro-war voices automatically stronger and more dominant and more confident intitially --- but I don't think it means that people in the US are any more or less suceptable to propaganda and ruling class ideas than any other population.

It's telling to me how effectively the last Iraq war was accepted in America when the populations of hardly any other country, at least in the OECD group, saw it as worthwhile. Part of that has to do with the unique post-9/11 hysteria, but also I think the Americans are more credulous towards their own government, especially in military matters. Another example of this is the bloated military budget in the US that is unequalled elsewhere. The reason that there is effectively consensus on beefing up the military, at least among the voting public, is hard to explain, it has to do with as you note things like the lack of a leftist infrastructure, the ruling class's grip on the media, probably also with the peculiar local economics of a permanent war economy. I'd classify a lot of these as constituent components of "American culture", but the outcome in any case is that there are few democratic countries where comparable consensus for so much overt militarism exist politically.

Finally, history has to be considered. There is also a fantasy that the American military is the heir to the entities that partook in the national myth - e.g., the American independence war, the civil war, and the second world war. It is thus not seen as merely "yet another institution" as may be the case in many other countries, but a primary protagonist in key moments in the nation's development. Perhaps the Red Army is the only comparable force that is so tied into a populous nation's lore that I could think of in the past several decades. Strikingly, despite that, no Red Army general ever came to head the country. In fact, the degree to which the American military is tied up with the national myths are almost reminiscent of Prussia.

One other thing that doesn't come up often enough in these discussion that America does have that not many other countries have is a long and constant legacy of war with its indigenous population, and, at least early in its history, against slave rebellions. This has helped create a culture of belligerance against outsiders, and a view of the US military as the main defender against such external threats for (white) civilians, that has been continued more or less to the present day. I think this has helped establish the dubious legitimacy of the American military in American society more broadly in a way that percolates to this day.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's telling to me how effectively the last Iraq war was accepted in America when the populations of hardly any other country, at least in the OECD group, saw it as worthwhile. Part of that has to do with the unique post-9/11 hysteria, but also I think the Americans are more credulous towards their own government, especially in military matters. Another example of this is the bloated military budget in the US that is unequalled elsewhere. The reason that there is effectively consensus on beefing up the military, at least among the voting public, is hard to explain, it has to do with as you note things like the lack of a leftist infrastructure, the ruling class's grip on the media, probably also with the peculiar local economics of a permanent war economy.The war drums beat and both the Democrats and Republicans closed ranks arguing that "something" had to be done and only argued about if they should "go it alone" or invade with a coalition. The media also closed ranks (without much effort since politically they media only parrots the talking points of the two parties). The "liberal" Dan Rather who was fired for being "unpatriotic" essentially, said that in war when the president says "jump" the media should oblige.

Among the population there was "confusion" and while there was a pro-war hardcore which has less in non 9/11 hysteria times after Vietnam, but the population as a whole did not buy it or understand it. If most were willing to give the benifit of the doubt, again, that's because the entire "official" politics of the country were 110% behind the war and attacking moderates for being pro-"terror".

There is nothing "cultural" about this, it's political. In Vietnam an opposition was able to form, but it took a while because similarly, the "oppoition party" of "peace" was running the war. But once shit cracked, it basically took 9/11 before the US was confident enough to wage more open-ended wars again.


I'd classify a lot of these as constituent components of "American culture", but the outcome in any case is that there are few democratic countries where comparable consensus for so much overt militarism exist politically. The needs of US military dominance by the US ruling class drives "militarism" as politicy and also then backs it up ideologically. This is why there is US militarism and a degree of support for it - the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the rulers. Popular opinion did not create US militarism - in fact, even among consiervatives in the population, until the cold war and now again after the cold war, "isolationism" has been a more common sentiment in the population than "militarism".

It's similar with other examples of mixed consiousness in the US. The US ruling class wants to control rebellios populations after the 70s and so the "war on crime" is created from above, a political 2-party consensus is organized, a massive media campaign is launched from the white house and lo and behold an issue that was not among the top political concerns in the population is suddently the main concern. All it took was a few campaign seasons of politicians going on about crime, nightly reprots in local media highlighting police efforts to combat sociopathic "gangs" and then "spontaniously" everyone is talking about the "crime problem" even as violent crime rates decline.


Finally, history has to be considered. There is also a fantasy that the American military is the heir to the entities that partook in the national myth - e.g., the American independence war, the civil war, and the second world war. It is thus not seen as merely "yet another institution" as may be the case in many other countries, but a primary protagonist in key moments in the nation's development. Perhaps the Red Army is the only comparable force that is so tied into a populous nation's lore that I could think of in the past several decades. Strikingly, despite that, no Red Army general ever came to head the country. In fact, the degree to which the American military is tied up with the national myths are almost reminiscent of Prussia.Not really. WWII and the cold war are the history that contemporary US rulers try and wrap into self-serving myths. The modern US imperial military is more connected to that function and purpose than it is to the revolution, civil war, or wars of displacement and occupation of natives. Ironically the US establishment tends to downplay any liberatory aspects of the revolution and civil war, so they like to present the need for the US military as protecting Democracy since this allows them a justification for economic competitive wars with other powers (stopping China's totalitarianism or in the past German and Japaneese militarism or countering the "Evil Emprie") and wage wars of control (spreading Democracy, humanitarian missions, etc).

So, again, I don't think there is a "cultural" link going on here, it's political. The main difference between the US and some other countries is A) the need by our rulers for a dominant military (many European countries after WWII could do social spending while not building a military because they were under the US "sphere") which then causes increased need to ideologicallly convince the population of this necissity (almost always on false grounds) B) lack of a political alternative and working class struggle. Alternative views (no matter how popular) are kept out of the mainstream through a two-party system and by having two parties that have the most influence sharing the same assumptions, it creates a sense of there being no real alternative. If you came to a town and asked for water and one person told you it was poisoned and then another said it had parisites that would make you sick - then you are likely going to think there MUST be something wrong with the water even if you don't buy either story as true.

There is definately a glorification of war and conquest and dominance in US "culture" but this is true to some extent in any exploitative society that wages wars in the interests of the ruling class. If these war-like myths don't really meet a need, then they are put to rest, but then if the war drums are played, the old myths are dusted off and re-introduced. But despite the effects of ruling class ideas about the need for military dominance in the population, US history and popular mass culture is also full of examples of "American Culture" that are benginly isolationist (some more right-wing, but more often just a desire to stay out of wars), Quarkarist pasificm and later secular or new-age versions, working class internationalism created through the experience of workers from all over coming together in US cities (this also can result in people taking bigoted views and nativist views, so it's not automatic, but it's definately a pronounced phenomena in US history from support for revolutionary Irish independance in New York to supporting anti-apartheid pickets in Africa.


One other thing that doesn't come up often enough in these discussion that America does have that not many other countries have is a long and constant legacy of war with its indigenous population, and, at least early in its history, against slave rebellions. This has helped create a culture of belligerance against outsiders, and a view of the US military as the main defender against such external threats for (white) civilians, that has been continued more or less to the present day. I think this has helped establish the dubious legitimacy of the American military in American society more broadly in a way that percolates to this day.There may be some connections, but I don't think this really plays a fundamental role. Capitalism is violent and exploitative and colonialism, especially of the settler-type, is particularly brutal - and I think that's the fundamental connection. Again, until WWII, I'd say there may be some truth to this and the US was still promoting itself as a sort of civilizing agent in the world. The popularity of westerns and then their drop-off in the decades after WWII may have some connection there.

There's a material difference between the relationship between modern US folks and the US military the (white) settlers and the early US military. Like the settlers in Israel today, US settlers were often the people provoking fights with native americans and calling for the calvalry to come in a clear up the "problem". The population was directly enjoying a dividend of the "spoils of war" through cheap or even free land, the US was being able to firmly declare control over new regions because of the settlement. So there was a material benifit in the US military for settlers in this period. Today, this is not the case - the US military and the US order around the world allow the US bosses to exploit more efficiently, to make us fight over smaller crumbs in a world-market, to undermine past hard-fought reforms by cutting budgets in favor of maintaining the world's largest military. The US ruling class keeps a firewall around it's military to prevent any democractic pressures from having direct influence - there's a reason for that.

[Lowtech]

Jason seems to be another one post warrior, posting this garbage then moves on.

"tyranny of the majority" is just another attack on democracy. In this case using communism inplace of democracy.

capitalism is not a political system, nor a legitimate system of governance therefore is not comparable to democracy.

what is comparable to capitalism however is the fact that socialism takes into account the needs of eveyone while capitalism takes into account only the wants of the few.

We need to stop formulating rebuttals to jasons "arguments" and make him defend the false assertations he puts forward.

[Red Enemy]

From my perspective, the "tyranny of the majority" is non-existent in capitalism. The hegemony held by the ruling class over ideas, culture, etc. is the true "tyranny of the majority". This is an inherent function of capitalism, regardless of the political system or government style. So, in essence, it is a true tyranny of the minority, which comes out on top in capitalist society. Looking at the old "Jim crow", and the "new Jim crow" (prison industrial complex), sexism, etc. are tools and ideas of the ruling class.

When it comes to proletariat "tyranny" over the bourgeoisie and counter revolutionaries, I am totally in support. The only true tyranny of the majority, exists in a DOTP, and should be supported fully by Marxists.