Letters from a Young Radical

I'm only just starting to think about this, so this is a dipping-my-toes entry, but I already find it really fascinating.

This past weekend I was learning about how Anarchists prefer total concensus decision-making, meaning that EVERYONE has to agree on a decision (which was called actually, "the tyranny of one", as one single person has all the power to stop a decision from being made). To socialists this seems like a great way to waste time.

Marxist Socialists are into democratic centralism, which Lenin called "freedom of discussion, unity of action" and is basically democratic majority rule. So you discuss, you vote, and then you agree (by being there in the first place) to work together to go forward with the decision. If it doesn't work, you learn from your mistakes, reassess, and try again. This makes sense to me, but an Anarchist would argue that it doesn't satisfy the needs/desires of everyone, which would be the most fair thing to do.

Capitalism is also interesting. Joel Waldfogel talks about this in his article, "If the shoe doesn't fit, blame the tyranny of the market". He quotes Milton Friedman,

"The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market is that it permits wide diversity. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit."

Waldfogel's reply:

"Free-market economists have told us for decades that we should rely on market decisions, not the government, to meet our needs, because it's the market that satisfies everyone's every desire, [but] for small groups with preferences outside the norm, the market often fails to deliver."

Which is absolutely true in a number of ways. Even considering something as trivial as fashion, in my experience, every once in awhile something comes out and you think, "awesome! I've been wanting one of these for a long time!", but when you did want them, what could you do to get one but make it yourself?

The market offers everyone health insurance, but a lot of people simply can't afford it. The market offers me tons of food options, but until recently, most of them were incredibly unhealthy. Even now while the market is changing to a more health-conscious state of mind, I still find it almost impossible to find a restaurant with normal proportions or a creative veggie menu.

Some people argue that because the market follows trends it gives us everything we need, and if it didn't, it wouldn't survive. This argument starts to crumble when considering the fact that most products are things we DON'T NEED but were convinced that we do in order that someone make a buck off our suffering egos. Similarly, it's argued that everyone is satisfied under Capitalism because we have SO MANY CHOICES! The problem with this is that even the choices we have are limited by the status quo - I don't need 17 different kinds of tampons, I just need one that won't give me TSS (I've never yet seen an unbleached tampon or an alternative on a chain supermarket shelf). I don't need 500 kinds of eyeliner, I just need the kind that won't give me cancer.

The American "democratic" two-party system is a similar problem.
America: "Would you like the hamburger with cheese, or without?"
Sally: "Uh, I don't eat meat..."
America: "Well if you don't eat one of them, you're unpatriotic for not participating in the system".

Yeah, that's how I feel about a lot of things. But anyway, back to the Tyranny of the Majority.

I think it would be great to have a system in which the voice of the majority actually matters, and once the vote has been made (in whatever context), the needs or wants of the losers should be considered. Compromises and additional solutions should be looked into. I think this will only work however, in a society and culture where people are valued over profit (yes of course I favor the socialist path).

Our next president, Barack Obama, is against gay marriage. Although a majority voted him in knowing thatl, I disagree that we should enact legislation against equality for the GLBT community. I think something like this wouldn't be a problem if we existed in a system that refused to oppress minorities for any reason, even at the behest of the majority.