A friend of mine believes that the consensus view of a group of people is always right.

I have a problem with this philosophy, what if they are wrong?

If or when they are wrong then that is when I have a big problem.

Right and wrong is always a point of view and not black and white. The advantage of a majority decision is it is easier to accept when it is wrong.

After what we've been through the last few years I'd say group think is very troubling and problematic. 20 years ago I wouldn't have been so sceptical

Posted By: Jontimost important decisions are pretty clear cut

Important questions, like capitalism vs socialism, may be clear cut, but in saying the decision is clear cut, you can't mean 'indisputably correct'?

Ancient Greece enfranchised only property-owning men, excluding resident 'foreigners' even if property-owning, women, freemen and slaves - an 'elite' equally heinous as most through history, but very different from our variety. Leave that aside, and the point is how the Greek franchise of rigorous 'equals' (which ours isn't) actually operated, for a heyday of 200yrs.

Above all, our system of doing and saying whatever it takes to scrape a voting majority, by weaving a net of favours, influence, scapegoats and appeals to prejudice, was specifically banned and punishable by exile of anyone who tried it. Instead, a group selected for fixed terms by lottery from among the 'equals', presumed 'educated', would debate issues until near-consensus - much like the present-day model of 'citizens' assembly'.

Posted By: fostertom

Posted By: Jontimost important decisions are pretty clear cut

Important questions, like capitalism vs socialism, may be clear cut, but in saying the decision is clear cut, you can't mean 'indisputably correct'?

I would certainly not claim 'indisputably correct' or even correct. I think you I pointed out that right or wrong (correct or incorrect if you prefer) is more a point of view (rather than fact) It is funny though that I would disagree completely with your example of a 'clear cut' decision. I would think it would be a close call in the UK over capitalism verses socialism where as a clear cut preference when looking at capitalism and communism

Posted By: fostertom

Communism hasn't existed anywhere in the world as yet - as Marx said, it will only be possible once productivity, 'machines' have reached a level of development that's only getting close now.

Then I guess neither has capitalism, socialism........ if you want to have a constructive discussion on decision making I am happy to do but if this is going to be an exercise of simply apposing/discrediting the apposing argument then I find it rather dull

Jonti, capitalism and socialism certainly have, and do exist. But just as Marx expected socialism to evolve - 'inevitably', he thought - on the foundation of capitalist efficiency, he expected communism, a distant ideal end point, to grow out of hard-graft socialism - the USSR didn't come close, and wasn't going to.

I asked you to expand your 'interesting' point, as well as inserting relevant facts about ancient Greece and about communism (incl reference) which you raised. Sounds like a constructive discussion to me.

The majority used to think the earth was flat.

A more current practical example, a group building a house have to decide whether or not some practical belt and braces approach is worth having or not. e.g. verge clips on the roof tiles.

The consensus is that not many houses in any of the local estates have them so they can’t be necessary

Posted By: borpinThe majority used to think the earth was flat.

And what's even worse the first person to suggest it wasn't was most likely pilloried and shunned from polite society

Posted By: fostertomJonti, capitalism and socialism certainly have, and do exist. But just as Marx expected socialism to evolve - 'inevitably', he thought - on the foundation of capitalist efficiency, he expected communism, a distant ideal end point, to grow out of hard-graft socialism - the USSR didn't come close, and wasn't going to.

I asked you to expand your 'interesting' point, as well as inserting relevant facts about ancient Greece and about communism (incl reference) which you raised. Sounds like a constructive discussion to me.

Yet the lack of the existence of communism is therefore a sign of its rejection by the vast majority of countries/people in the world is ,for me at least, a clear cut decision. On the flipside, I am not sure many if any of the self named communist regimes would agree with Marx.

As for what constitutes 'important decisions' I would suggest the democracy verses communism is a good example. Also, the collective funding of infrastructure necessary to carry out normal everyday living would be another.

I am not sure if you are expecting further comment on 'Greek democracy' or not but I think most people would consider democracy to mean one person, one vote which means said Greek version fails the test but this is just my opinion.

Posted By: Jontithe lack of the existence of communism is therefore a sign of its rejection by the vast majority of countries/people in the world

No, it's lack is because it's not been technologically possible so far - but now getting close. No-one's been offered Marx's communism so far, though various political projects have falsely claimed to be communism, and more have been ignorantly labelled as communism by their enemies.

Marx had lots to say about the hard-decisions intermediate stage, socialism, but for him communism was too far ahead to say how it would pan out, except that it would be when labour (as a survival necessity) would be eliminated, scarcity replaced by abundance, and work, leisure, learning and personal fulfilment blend together. This would be via a future full deployment of 'machines' as he called it 150yrs ago, or extreme productivity/robotisation as we can now envisage it. Not there yet, and many rich corporations and individuals in the world whose interests oppose it.

Posted By: Jontithe collective funding of infrastructure necessary to carry out normal everyday living

is exactly the battleground.

Really, check out
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fully-Automated-Luxury-Communism-Manifesto/dp/1786632632/ref=sr_1_1?crid=32HQRYRU0IHIT&keywords=fully+automated+luxury+communism&qid=1672824738&sprefix=fully+automated%2Caps%2C111&sr=8-1
Marx is baffling to read in the original and massively over-complicated, like the bible allowing endless interpretations to be cherry-picked, but this brings my preferred interpretation right into the present/near future. Another to read is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=why+marx+was+right&ref=nb_sb_noss
which is not what the title says, but entertainingly corrects the many popular, ignorant or deliberate misrepresentations of what Marx actually said.

fostertom,

I don't agree that Marx is the only way to assess communism so just because you feel that it is makes for a discussion. However, I believe that the vast majority of the population of the world if asked to name a communist state would be able to name quite a few. This means that for the majority the question 'is there a communist state in the world' would be answered with yes. That does not make my point of view correct nor yours wrong. Successful decision making for large groups of people is less about getting the best or even a correct decision and more about reaching a consensus acceptable to a large enough majority that even if it turns out badly for some/all, those people can still accept the decision.

Posted By: Jontifostertom,

Successful decision making for large groups of people is less about getting the best or even a correct decision and more about reaching a consensus acceptable to a large enough majority that even if it turns out badly for some/all, those people can still accept the decision.

+1. Examples of where there was not a large majority are BREXIT and Welsh Assembly and still the discontent rolls on. A similar fate awaits Scottish independence if Ms. Sturgeon has her way on calling another referendum.

Posted By: fostertomSo if what's called communism, and rejected, in the world is not what Marx meant, that still leaves Marx's version free to be tried out and assessed. I for one look forward to that experiment, when it becomes technically possible.

Agreed. Yet, IMO it's success will depend less on the 'technical' and more on an emphasis on wellbeing/life satisfaction being the standard by which success is judged rather than money.