Haven’t you talked to people? The opinion of the masses is BAD. Most people are crazy stupid. The rest – don’t have enough information to form a good opinion. We really need (except for trivial cases which are many, but still far from all) “professional opinion makers”. Party.
All institutions act according to their interests; by reducing decision-making to a small group, you necessarily create the conditions in which that institution will make decisions according to their interests, and not the interests of the masses. This conflict between the masses and the institution results in instability, and damages any attempt at creating long-term change.
Vanguard parties are self-defeating; they presage nothing but the rule of that selfsame vanguard.
institution will make decisions according to their interests
Yes, but it is possible to keep them in line with the masses’ wrath. While the masses themselves are so stupid that they can’t make any adequate decision at all.
How are the masses supposed to keep them in line if they’re too stupid to make adequate decisions? If it worked like you claim it does, then the Vangaurd Party would just be an instrument of the popular will, bowing to the wrath of the ill-informed masses.
So… hierarchy based on perceived intelligence by whoever happens to have the power of physical force to take over? That doesn’t sound particularly helpful for developing a sustainable society or one that isn’t based on coercion. I’m also not sure how this perspective fits with the withering away of the state.
What you’re describing is setting up a revolving door for anyone with the might to enforce their will while assuming that everything will work out in your favor. Manipulating people into attacking your enemies for you so that you can retain totalitarian control and alienate the people from their labor, their autonomy, and their society isn’t really the same thing as freeing then from oppressive and wasteful social systems.
There’s also a moral component that’s being left out here, namely that humans ought to have the right to make decisions for themselves. Whether those decisions are good or bad, they should be able to make choices in their lives and work together to make choices at a larger scale when it’s necessary. They shouldn’t be dictated to by a political party any more than they should be by capitalists.
This is also a practical matter. What incentive for people to educate themselves is improved by rendering their input into their societies meaningless?
Haven’t you talked to people? The opinion of the masses is BAD. Most people are crazy stupid. The rest – don’t have enough information to form a good opinion. We really need (except for trivial cases which are many, but still far from all) “professional opinion makers”. Party.
All institutions act according to their interests; by reducing decision-making to a small group, you necessarily create the conditions in which that institution will make decisions according to their interests, and not the interests of the masses. This conflict between the masses and the institution results in instability, and damages any attempt at creating long-term change.
Vanguard parties are self-defeating; they presage nothing but the rule of that selfsame vanguard.
Yes, but it is possible to keep them in line with the masses’ wrath. While the masses themselves are so stupid that they can’t make any adequate decision at all.
How are the masses supposed to keep them in line if they’re too stupid to make adequate decisions? If it worked like you claim it does, then the Vangaurd Party would just be an instrument of the popular will, bowing to the wrath of the ill-informed masses.
There is a huge difference between making an adequate decision and simply detecting that the current decision is shitty and starting wrath.
I strongly disagree.
So… hierarchy based on perceived intelligence by whoever happens to have the power of physical force to take over? That doesn’t sound particularly helpful for developing a sustainable society or one that isn’t based on coercion. I’m also not sure how this perspective fits with the withering away of the state.
What you’re describing is setting up a revolving door for anyone with the might to enforce their will while assuming that everything will work out in your favor. Manipulating people into attacking your enemies for you so that you can retain totalitarian control and alienate the people from their labor, their autonomy, and their society isn’t really the same thing as freeing then from oppressive and wasteful social systems.
There’s also a moral component that’s being left out here, namely that humans ought to have the right to make decisions for themselves. Whether those decisions are good or bad, they should be able to make choices in their lives and work together to make choices at a larger scale when it’s necessary. They shouldn’t be dictated to by a political party any more than they should be by capitalists.
This is also a practical matter. What incentive for people to educate themselves is improved by rendering their input into their societies meaningless?
That’s why we need to educate the masses, not control them.
Correct.