Define majority... define minority. Not numerically (which is clear enough), but politically.

@MyNameIsHurl Numerically or politically?

Also, doesn't that mean almost everyone is a majority in most places, even people who consider themselves minorities?
For example, whichever party loses the US elections would like to think of themselves as the minority... but since neither Democrats nor Republicans are free thinkers, won't the losing minority still be a majority?
Similarly, in the UK, Muslims are said to be a minority, but since there is very little chance of finding free thinkers in their midst, that would still make them a majority, right?
And numerous other such examples....?

@chilloutab2 overall free thinkers are the minority in politics and numbers. It's why people are so opposed to any new ideas or viewpoints

there are no new ideas/viewpoints in politics, only rehashing of old ones. The idea that something that has been tried and failed dozens of times already is naïve at best...

@chilloutab2
Communism is stateless and classless, so a country can't be communist. It would have to eliminate the government first.

The rich generally just make money off of the workers. Maybe some of them work too, but most just collect profit from other people's work, so they're not considered part of the working-class.


The Catholics on the Supreme Court do exercise their power, but they don't do it in a way that benefits Catholics at the expense of other groups. So the fact that a minority is in this position of power doesn't really matter.

In America, we have two parties, Democrats and Republicans. On the Supreme Court, Catholic Democrats vote with all the other Democrats, while Catholic Republicans vote with all the other Republicans. So the fact that a minority religion is the majority on the court, it doesn't matter. We could replace them all with Muslims or Protestants and it wouldn't make a difference because the parties matter, not the religions.

So that's an example of a minority having more power than the majority, but it not mattering.

@BohemianBabe

The rich generally just make money off of the workers. Maybe some of them work too, but most just collect profit from other people's work, so they're not considered part of the working-class.
But workers make money off each other too... how else would any complex enterprise function other than as a collaborative effort?
Let's take a cotton mill - no one worker can run it. Even if its only 2 people, one running the yarn spinner and the other the loom, they are both profiting from each other's work. So who is the working class guy and who is the rich guy here?


Communism is stateless and classless, so a country can't be communist. It would have to eliminate the government first
So in the absence of government, decisions are made communally? But how? By a simple majority? And what about those who fall in the minority that does not agree with the decision?
And how is, say, law and order maintained in the absence of a government? Do people self-govern themselves when it comes to law and order?


So that's an example of a minority having more power than the majority, but it not mattering.
Still seems like the only way it doesn't matter that a minority has more power than the majority is when the minority does not exercise that power for its own benefit... in other words the same as their not having any power that is conspicuous.


On another note, in case we continue this further, might be a better idea to take this to DM instead of disturbing the peace on a common forum.

@chilloutab2
Sure, but the people getting rich are the people who own the business.


They're both workers. It's possible they could get rich off of that and still be workers, but that's very rare. Usually what happens under Capitalism is that they would then hire other people to work the cotton mill, which they own, so they can make money without doing the work. Then they'd expand the mill, hire more workers, and so on.


The idea is that all major decisions would be done democratically.

Personally, I don't think Communism could ever work. Like the example you gave with law, who exactly would make and enforce the laws? People could vote on laws, but if a local war lord gains power, what's to stop them? The strongest militia could just go around killing and robbing people and the rest of us wouldn't have democratic control over them, like we do with government.
I'm a Socialist, not a Communist. I think Communism is just a pipedream. But to be fair, there has never been a communist country because simply having a government makes it not communist.


Pretty much. This is why I'm more concerned with making society as democratic as possible. I don't care about the demographics of the people at the top as long as they're beholden to the public.


You can DM if you want, but we're not disturbing the peace as long as we're staying on topic and not just trolling.