Oppressing the minority by the majority?

[Issaiah1332]

I am often faced with this: In communism, there is still opression. This time it is by the majority oppressing the minority.

Will there be voting on things need to be decided, ect.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

In a true communist society there would be no oppession of anyone. No looking for capitalist under the bed and every need would be met that people would living really happy lives and such that would be beyond our understanding. Actually, no one really knows what a communist society would be like. There are a lot of ideas but we really don't know what the inter-personal relationships would be or what sort of cooperation society would agree on. If there is oppession then the society has failed. There is also the possibility that no new society comes and we end up with barbarism seeing that everything ends in tears.

[Issaiah1332]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:35 pm
In a true communist society there would be no oppession of anyone. No looking for capitalist under the bed and every need would be met that people would living really happy lives and such that would be beyond our understanding. Actually, no one really knows what a communist society would be like. There are a lot of ideas but we really don't know what the inter-personal relationships would be or what sort of cooperation society would agree on. If there is oppession then the society has failed. There is also the possibility that no new society comes and we end up with barbarism seeing that everything ends in tears.
Then what do you do when something has to be decided? Do you vote? If so than the minority are being oppressed, in some sense.

[The Feral Underclass]

Who is this minority?

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Isaiah wrote: Then what do you do when something has to be decided? Do you vote? If so than the minority are being oppressed, in some sense.

Well, majority vote does not vote to oppress a minority. Nay, the new society would not infringe on civil liberties of individuals (including religious ones) nor the rights of minorities if that is the answer you are looking for. What decisions are decided upon by popular vote would truly be fair and balanced unlike the Fox News channel. :P

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In most cases, it is impossible to reach a decision that satisfies everyone. If it is impossible to satisfy everyone, what is the next best thing? Satisfy the greatest possible number of people - the majority.

Communism will try to satisfy everyone whenever that is possible. When it is not possible, communism will satisfy the majority, which is far better than satisfying a minority.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:23 pm
I am often faced with this: In communism, there is still opression. This time it is by the majority oppressing the minority.

Will there be voting on things need to be decided, ect.
I think you have the wrong idea on when the majority will oppress the minority. During the dictatorship of the proletariat the majority (workers) will be fighting and trying to put down the remaining capitalist class. I guess this could be seen as "oppression" but I believe we our trying to defend our revolution against aggressions by the remaining capitalist class throughout the world. In communism, when we have eradicated the bourgeois class, everyone will be equal. As, the comrade above me stated, if we cant please everyone then we should try to please the majority but this is hardly seen as oppression unless there is an obvious biased towards 1 group of people but that will also be fought against during communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 08, 2007 01:09 am
Communism will try to satisfy everyone whenever that is possible
No it won't.

[Rawthentic]

It won't? Do you mind clarifying?

Or let me guess: you mean that we are going to take care of ourselves by controlling society right? Then yea, absolutely.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

QUOTE (Edric O @ April 08, 2007 01:09 am)
Communism will try to satisfy everyone whenever that is possible.


Anarchist Tension wrote: No it won't.

hastalavictoria wrote: It won't? Do you mind clarifying?

Or let me guess: you mean that we are going to take care of ourselves by controlling society right? Then yea, absolutely.

AT is correct because there would be no pleasing everyone. Look how you responded. You were not pleased with his response. People will do the best they can as they do now and problems will exist as well. It's not going to be the 1,000 year reign of Christ (or Mosiach) don't you know.

[Rawthentic]

What I meant is that we will be in control of our lives, of our communities, everything, and by coming together and solving our problems as they come up, we can satisfy ourselves to the best of our abilities.

If we are talking about democracy, that is another subject.

[RGacky3]

In a communist (Anarchist) society, the only desicions made will be by those involved, its impossible to oppress anyone unless you can enforce your desicions on them.

All desicions will be voluntary, voluntary associations.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

RGacky3 wrote: In a communist (Anarchist) society, the only desicions made will be by those involved, its impossible to oppress anyone unless you can enforce your desicions on them.

All desicions will be voluntary, voluntary associations.

All decisions would have to be based on one person-one vote which means there will be losers which translates that not everyone will be happy with decisions made by the majority. They will moan. complain, cuss, or perhaps a fist fight would break out but that don't make them reactionaries, counter revolutionaries or Aries himself.

hastavictoria wrote: What I meant is that we will be in control of our lives, of our communities, everything, and by coming together and solving our problems as they come up, we can satisfy ourselves to the best of our abilities.

If we are talking about democracy, that is another subject.

We have not come to that point in history yet. Look at it this way. Even though we are in a capitalist society we do have control of our lives, make decisions and there is still problems between people. If there is communal ownership of production there will still be problems between people which will have to be solved in each community. There would be personal satisfaction when ground is gained and I am sure there will be disappointment when ground is lost. All of this will be done in a democratic way which is why I don't understand why that would be another subject. Some people abilities will be better than others. Some will work harder than others while some will leave things for others to do which will piss some people off real bad. There is no such thing as a perfect world. It won't exist in the new but we have to try to make things better for all rather than a few and that's going to be a difficult thing to accomplish.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:11 am

QUOTE (Edric O @ April 08, 2007 01:09 am)
Communism will try to satisfy everyone whenever that is possible.

Anarchist Tension wrote: No it won't.

hastalavictoria wrote: It won't? Do you mind clarifying?

Or let me guess: you mean that we are going to take care of ourselves by controlling society right? Then yea, absolutely.

AT is correct because there would be no pleasing everyone. Look how you responded. You were not pleased with his response. People will do the best they can as they do now and problems will exist as well. It's not going to be the 1,000 year reign of Christ (or Mosiach) don't you know.
And that was precisely my point (before I was quoted out of context). If we can please everyone, great, but don't expect that to happen too often.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

We don't know what the needs or desires the new society would want. We could guess that everone will be in paradise. It could be a nightmare with a new Stalin in power on a planetary scale--spooky. Notice I avoid using the word communism.

[Demogorgon]

Having a vote and going with the majority decision isn't oppression. Say for example we are having a vote on what side of the road we are going to drive on and vote to drive on the left. There will obviously have been some people who want to drive on the right, and they will have lost, however they have not been oppressed, they have been allowed to make their case and have a fair shot at it and the people have decided otherwise. They will have to go along with the decision but it was coem by in a way that did not oppress them.

Of course if the people were to vote to say, enact sodomy laws, that would be oppression, because it would be encroaching into private behaviour, which should not be regulated unless it causes public trouble, but for pubic issues, there is no oppression in going with the majority.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

I am sure there would be laws against kidnapping, rape and murder in the new society. To say that all the evils of the world would disapear in the new society is wishful thinking.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:24 pm
RGacky3 wrote: In a communist (Anarchist) society, the only desicions made will be by those involved, its impossible to oppress anyone unless you can enforce your desicions on them.

All desicions will be voluntary, voluntary associations.

All decisions would have to be based on one person-one vote which means there will be losers which translates that not everyone will be happy with decisions made by the majority. They will moan. complain, cuss, or perhaps a fist fight would break out but that don't make them reactionaries, counter revolutionaries or Aries himself.


Why would all decisions have to be based on a one person one vote democracy? That is not true. No decisions would "have" to be based on anything. The decisions could instead be made without democracy where one group wins and the other loses and just be made by a discussion and compromise between comrades.

Surely we wouldn't want mob rule. At least I don't.

[Rawthentic]

It is not "mob rule", it is democracy that works for those who work.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Chicano Shamrock wrote: Why would all decisions have to be based on a one person one vote democracy? That is not true. No decisions would "have" to be based on anything. The decisions could instead be made without democracy where one group wins and the other loses and just be made by a discussion and compromise between comrades.

Surely we wouldn't want mob rule. At least I don't.

It's not mob rule. Things have to be discussed and decided upon and put to a vote. There has to be a structure of things to follow rather than a yelling match between people.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:20 pm
It's not mob rule. Things have to be discussed and decided upon and put to a vote. There has to be a structure of things to follow rather than a yelling match between people.
Things don't HAVE to be anything. That is mob rule. Rule by the majority. The I's have it. I think things can be discussed and decided upon without a vote. There could still be structure without a vote and having one group lose and the other win. If we are so much about combating bourgeois way of life why do we not also combat their system of democracy where it is necessary for some of our comrades to lose.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 09, 2007 04:58 am
Things don't HAVE to be anything. That is mob rule. Rule by the majority. The I's have it. I think things can be discussed and decided upon without a vote. There could still be structure without a vote and having one group lose and the other win. If we are so much about combating bourgeois way of life why do we not also combat their system of democracy where it is necessary for some of our comrades to lose.
Do you actually believe any of that? If you do then you are ridiculously utopian, unless someone waves a magic wand that makes everyone think the same and agree on everything all the time then that would never work. Like TGWW said "There has to be a structure of things to follow rather than a yelling match between people."

[Whitten]

Communism is collectivist not individualist. The definition of communism isnt that everyone is completly free at all times regardless of what it is they are doing.

[TheAdlerian]

It makes sense that some people/groups would have to be oppressed, but it wold only be just if said groups were intent on doing against the collective.

Fred: I have created the Totally Hot Workers Faction. We plan on accepting only the most attractive works for our party.

People's Committee: Sorry brother, but that's wrong and illegal. Go home and think about it and we'll see you tomorrow.

[Rawthentic]

I wouldn't call that "oppression". They are the minority, the worker's faction, and the People's Committee are the majority, so it is called democracy in action.

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:00 pm
I wouldn't call that "oppression". They are the minority, the worker's faction, and the People's Committee are the majority, so it is called democracy in action.
Right, but there is the problem of people never thinking they're wrong. The "Totally Hot" party, will cry "oppression" because they, being cracked up, believe that their "hotness" is some natural right.

Really, they are "royalists" and don't even know it. So, they have to be held down until they get it or get tired.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by ComradeR+April 09, 2007 02:10 am--> (ComradeR @ April 09, 2007 02:10 am)
Chicano [email protected] 09, 2007 04:58 am
Things don't HAVE to be anything. That is mob rule. Rule by the majority. The I's have it. I think things can be discussed and decided upon without a vote. There could still be structure without a vote and having one group lose and the other win. If we are so much about combating bourgeois way of life why do we not also combat their system of democracy where it is necessary for some of our comrades to lose.
Do you actually believe any of that? If you do then you are ridiculously utopian, unless someone waves a magic wand that makes everyone think the same and agree on everything all the time then that would never work. Like TGWW said "There has to be a structure of things to follow rather than a yelling match between people." [/b]
I am not saying that everyone would agree on everything. I am just saying compromise could get people to agree on the middle ground. Who is saying anything about a yelling match? I am talking about civil discussions and compromise instead of stubbornness and defeat.

[rouchambeau]

There's something very, very troubling about the justification of a decision by saying, "Hey man, tough luck. That's democracy in action!" Such sentiment can justify a decision no matter how racist or sexist it may be.

[Janus]

It's one of the common arguements against direct democracy yet it doesn't counteract the theory itself. With political and economic equality and freedom, people have the ability to manifest their political weight and become engaged in actual decision making so even if they do lose, that doesn't mean that they are permanent "minorities" rather they have just as much if not better chance next time.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+April 09, 2007 09:49 pm--> (Chicano Shamrock @ April 09, 2007 09:49 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:10 am

Chicano [email protected] 09, 2007 04:58 am
Things don't HAVE to be anything. That is mob rule. Rule by the majority. The I's have it. I think things can be discussed and decided upon without a vote. There could still be structure without a vote and having one group lose and the other win. If we are so much about combating bourgeois way of life why do we not also combat their system of democracy where it is necessary for some of our comrades to lose.
Do you actually believe any of that? If you do then you are ridiculously utopian, unless someone waves a magic wand that makes everyone think the same and agree on everything all the time then that would never work. Like TGWW said "There has to be a structure of things to follow rather than a yelling match between people."
I am not saying that everyone would agree on everything. I am just saying compromise could get people to agree on the middle ground. Who is saying anything about a yelling match? I am talking about civil discussions and compromise instead of stubbornness and defeat.[/b]
And if a compromise can't be reached what then? When it comes to large numbers of people trying to decide something political and/or economical it becomes very difficult if not impossible to reach a compromise, because people have different opinions on what should be done and often feel very strongly about them to the point that compromise isn't possible (and yes this kind of situation can and usually does turn into a yelling match).

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:31 am
And if a compromise can't be reached what then? When it comes to large numbers of people trying to decide something political and/or economical it becomes very difficult if not impossible to reach a compromise, because people have different opinions on what should be done and often feel very strongly about them to the point that compromise isn't possible (and yes this kind of situation can and usually does turn into a yelling match).
And we know this because we have transcripts of discussions from communist societies?

[TheGreenWeeWee]

There have been brawls in political cogresses around the world. Those things happen sometimes when compomise can't be reached. However, most of the time everything is done in a civil matter.