Is ‘tyranny of the majority’ a threat to socialist societies?

Is ‘tyranny of the majority’ a threat to socialist societies?

Posted by

The English sad boy, JS Mill, outlined how
the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous as traditional tyranny. And every amateur philosopher uses it as justification
for why socialism can’t work. The Brexit vote, Trump’s Presidency, and
6ix9ine’s career, the list of popular disasters is endless. But how much should leftists worry? [click]
The deeper you dig, “tyranny of the majority” is pretty relative. Since everyone always feels like they’re being tyrannized by the majority! Slavery is a pretty clear example of majority tyranny that we can all agree to, right? Well, the famous slave-owner John C. Calhoun
thought it was slaveowners who were being forced to follow the whims of the masses. And actually, slavery is better understood
as an example of minority tyranny, where the wealthy imposed their will and made it the
law of the land. That’s how we got the Fugitive Slave Acts
after all, until their tyranny became so unruly, that’s when the Civil War happened. What about Jim Crow? This one is complicated, because while the
racist culture that drove Jim Crow had a life of its own, it was deeply embedded in the
scientific racism used to justify colonization and slavery. In fact, almost all cases of popular tyranny
have material conditions that make the hate possible. American-Japanese internment camps were rooted in
economic anxiety and feelings of unfairness, precisely the same fears Germans had of the
Jewish people. When you eliminate profit-motives for discrimination,
I won’t pretend hate will disappear overnight, but it’ll be a lot harder to stir up anti-minority
sentiments in a society that doesn’t incentivize you to do so. Going back to profits, there’s little doubt
that for American revolutionaries, the P and M in protection of minorities mainly stood
for property and money. The common narrative surrounding majority
rule was that the dumb peasantry would run the republic into the ground if not for anti-democratic
measures. This is a common argument against us: the
abandonment of rationality. It asks, well what if the masses are convinced
that GMOs are bad, despite what sciene people say? There needs to be something in place to wrestle
power away from the idiots! Irrational group think could end us! Eh, that’s not likely. Take a workplace syndicate with no chosen
leaders, there will be the more experienced and less experienced, the more educated and
the less educated. If a culture of deferment is established,
like the one we have today, there’s no reason to think people will suddenly stop respecting
their elders or natural superiors. And since socialist countries, historically
and theoretically, have a higher quality of life and rate of education, there will be
less people believing straight up fabrications. But, there is one final example of majority
tyranny outlined by John Stuart Mill: social tyranny. What if a community, say, looks down on heterosexuality. They don’t criminalize it, ¬but you’ll
be isolated for sure for simply living your life a certain way without hurting others. It’s possible that without federated nations
or centralized control, some pockets of society will choose to organize themselves in undesirable
ways. The easy answer here is free association. If you don’t like it, you can leave. This answer works under a leftist society
because, the economic restraints that usually exist in capitalist one don’t exist here. But it’s a possible issue. What happens when you give people freedom,
and they use it to tyrannize others? In cases of a rouge community, is it right
for surrounding communities to force independent people to be righteous? There’s no easy answer. But, in any transition towards a socialist,
communist, or anarchist society, these ideas will have to be dealt with intentionally if
we want to live in a harmonious multicultural world.


  1. Do you think truly liberated societies (anarchist, fully communist, libertarian socialist, whatever the tag) have a right to hold each-other accountable on what JS Mill describes as 'social tyranny'?

  2. no slavery was Tyranny of the Majority because the majority allowed it to happen
    because the majority are egocentric
    and ecocentric people only care when it affect them.

  3. There are only three fundamental springs of homine conduct, and all possible motives arise from one or other of these. They are:

    1. Egoism: which desires the weal of the self and is limitless.

    2. Malice: which desires the woe of others and may develop into the utmost cruelty.
    3. Compassion: which desires the weal of others and may rise to nobleness and magnanimity.
    very hominid act is referable to one of these springs; although two of them may work together.

    egocentrismo is what allowed slavery sexism speciesism racism clasism. etc to exists.

    today the majority of people is in the egocentric face. this kind of mindset is quite frankly the Western mindset.

    Elie wiesel how is one concentration camp Survivor cold 'apathy' the opposite of love because it is far more destructive and Evil.

    it is the absence of emotions
    cold and callousness
    without passion.,,,….
    is what malice allowed to exist and grow

  4. If you're concerned about ingesting pesticide residues yet you're still a carnivore or omnivore, pay particular attention to the next sentence. The overwhelming majority of pesticide intake comes from eating animal products. There are three reasons for this. First, the meat, dairy and egg industries douse billions of animals with chemicals to kill flies and mosquitoes that spread diseases from animal to animal. These chemicals seep through the pores, where they're permanently stored in the animals' flesh. Second, federal law allows crops set aside as animal feed to be sprayed with two to 20 times the amount of chemicals used on crops set aside for hominid consumption! Finally, keep in mind that it takes from three to 20 pounds of plant protein to produce just one pound of animal protein (depending on the animal in question). Therefore, by eating an animal you are not only ingesting many times more toxic residue from the very plants eaten by the animal you ate than you would have had you just eaten the plants yourself; you are also ingesting the accumulation of these residues over the entire (brief life of the animal you ate!
    In stark contrast, only a small percentage of pesticide intake comes from plant-based foods. But the majority of that residue can be washed away pretty easily. You also have the option to purchase organic plant foods, which solves the chemical problem altogether. While you might be able to buy some chemical-free animal products (which is pretty hard to do because animal feed is rarely organic), don't forget that there are still four issues that can never be overcome: (1) slaughterhouse cruelty; (2) the commodification and enslavement of animals; (3) the deleterious effects of consuming animal protein, casein, the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products, and the naturally-occurring trans fatty acids found in meat and dairy; and (4) the environmental destruction and world hunger caused by animal-based agriculture.

  5. You make lots of great points here. I do have one thought re: free association and being free to leave a community if it's awful… That may be attractive to unrooted people, and people from cultures where moving around is totally normalized. But what about Indigenous people? In Canada, we're about 4-5% of the population, and only 1% in the USA. "You're free to leave your ancestral territory if the racism is too much" is not something that's going to appeal to many of us.

    While some territories are vast (e.g. Cree Territory), others are smaller and overwhelmingly inhabited by non-Indigenous people, as settler cities were often built on top of Indigenous villages.

    Settlers have more than material reasons to discriminate against Indigenous people — throughout the colonized world, settlers have been taught for multiple generations that our cultures, peoples and languages are inferior and useless. Sadly I've encountered many white leftists, and even some non-Indigenous POC leftists, who have no respect for our ways or histories.

    I am not sure what the answer is. (Just to be clear, I know it's not "let's just keep the status quo" though.)

  6. Totm is just a sneaky way of saying "I am against democracy, if it doesn't overlap with elite rule".

  7. If the Aztecs weren’t colonized they might still have their Satanic religion which sacrifices about 1000 humans every month

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *