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

@BohemianBabe What about the times and places where the workers - or the majority - have held power?
Also, is it inherently bad for a minority to have power than a majority... or vice versa? How so, either way?

@chilloutab2
The workers have never held more power than the rich. If that ever happened, then money would be worthless.


Not necessarily. It's possible for a minority to have a disproportionate amount of power but it not matter.
An interesting example is the Supreme Court. Catholics are a minority in America, but a majority on the SCOTUS. But it doesn't really matter because they don't vote in a way that benefits Catholics at the expense of anyone else. The Democrats vote as a bloc, the Republicans vote as a bloc, the Catholics don't.

@BohemianBabe

The workers have never held more power than the rich. If that ever happened, then money would be worthless.
Not even in Communist countries?
Also, define a worker. Isn't a rich person a worker at some enterprise as well, even if it is his own?


Also, kindly provide non-US examples. As a non-American, I may not be as aware about American politics as you (assuming you are American, that is).

Also, in the US Catholics example... if they do not use their position to influence the course of events and politics, doesn't it mean that a minority having power is only ok and does not matter so long as the minority does not exercise that power? And if they do not exercise the power then isn't it the same as them not having the power?

@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.