Does power corrupt?

[Wubbaz]

Does power corrupt? By power it is meant, for example, that person A can use his power over person B to make person B do something that person B otherwise wouldn't have done. But please also come with your own definitions of what power is. Does power in itself corrupt, or do other factors play a role aswell? Does power corrupt due to human nature, or nuture?

[Ocean Seal]

No I would argue that power doesn't corrupt, and in addition I doubt that a very comprehensive human nature is even understood being that we are complex social beings. Power doesn't corrupt but the institutions of power if not properly checked can be and in fact will be corrupted, and if they are not corrupted then it is because the system of delegating power was already extremely poor (as in monarchy).

And I don't mean checks and balances in the capitalist sense, because I would say that a couple of branches of elite bourgeois politicians checking one another is really not "checking" one another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some trouble-maker has yelped
That power corrupts people
And every smart-alec confirms it
Already for many years in a row
Not noting - and here's the misfortune
That more often people corrupt power

(Yuri Andropov, political poem)

[Ostrinski]

Corruption is an ethical argument. There are better, more pragmatic arguments to be made against absolute power.

[Q]

There are better, more pragmatic arguments to be made against absolute power.

There are. In fact, I would turn the point around somewhat. From a communist point of view, the current state system is a result of our class society in that the state is designed for a minority class in particular to rule, in its own interests. This has led to complicated hierarchies, a theatrical appearance of "democracy", an unjust justice system and specialised bureaucratic machines.

A communist would argue for the overthrow of this state, as simply taking over that state will simply repeat the limits already set, that is to stay within the system of minority rule (aka institutional corruption). Therefore we need a radical new kind of state, where the majority class rules and one that is only a "state" in the sense that it keeps other classes (such as the small capitalists and the middle layers, holding monopolies over skills and knowledge) out of monopolising power to themselves. In normal situations this simply requires an actual democracy, where the majority (which consists of working class people in any industrialised country) rules society in its own interests - that is, the interests of the collective.

This is the essence of the Democratic Republic in the way Marx and Engels were talking about it.

[GPDP]

IMO, the concept of "corruption," at least as it is employed in mainstream parlance, is an idealist construct. It presupposes that institutions do and act as described on the label, and any deviation from an institution's stated goals by the individuals in charge is therefore an aberration, and thus the people in power are deemed "corrupt." It ignores the reality of class antagonisms and contradictions, instead taking for granted the legitimacy of existing bourgeois institutions without taking into account how those very institutions, despite any pretenses, are actually there to secure the power of capital above all else. In that sense, the truly "corrupt" people are those who deviate from using state power in the interests of the bourgeoisie, at least from the bourgeoisie's point of view, even if technically that institution's stated goals are to help the people.

So I say to those who buy into the whole "power corrupts" narrative: if the possibility exists that a position of power can "corrupt" an individual, then either the institution is malformed, or there aren't enough organs of accountability set up. At the moment, I would argue most institutions actually fit both criteria. We would do well to make sure this is not the case, if ever we live to see a socialist society worthy of the name.

[KR]

There are. In fact, I would turn the point around somewhat. From a communist point of view, the current state system is a result of our class society in that the state is designed for a minority class in particular to rule, in its own interests. This has led to complicated hierarchies, a theatrical appearance of "democracy", an unjust justice system and specialised bureaucratic machines.

A communist would argue for the overthrow of this state, as simply taking over that state will simply repeat the limits already set, that is to stay within the system of minority rule (aka institutional corruption). Therefore we need a radical new kind of state, where the majority class rules and one that is only a "state" in the sense that it keeps other classes (such as the small capitalists and the middle layers, holding monopolies over skills and knowledge) out of monopolising power to themselves. In normal situations this simply requires an actual democracy, where the majority (which consists of working class people in any industrialised country) rules society in its own interests - that is, the interests of the collective.

This is the essence of the Democratic Republic in the way Marx and Engels were talking about it.
We dont need a "radical new kind of state" we need to abolish the state. Radical state is a contradiction in terms.

[Rafiq]

Power does not and can not corrupt. For something to corrupt would suggest imparity from start.

All "corrupted" constructs were corrupt to begin with.

[Rafiq]

We dont need a "radical new kind of state" we need to abolish the state. Radical state is a contradiction in terms.

Sure, if you're a subscriber to Bourgeois-Idealist thought. The state itself is necessary for the proletariat to systematically opress the class enemy.

[Bronco]

Sure, if you're a subscriber to Bourgeois-Idealist thought. The state itself is necessary for the proletariat to systematically opress the class enemy.

How exactly is it "bourgeois" to want to abolish the state

[Q]

How exactly is it "bourgeois" to want to abolish the state

One cannot abolish the state, as long as we still have a class society. One can therefore only overcome the need for a state. As I described in my previous post, we need to overthrow the bourgeois state and replace it with a state that gives the working class effective power as a class-collective. This is only a "state" in the sense Rafiq described it: A class oppressive apparatus. Or, as I said: "Therefore we need a radical new kind of state, where the majority class rules and one that is only a "state" in the sense that it keeps other classes [...] out of monopolising power to themselves." (emphasis added)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with Q's posts totally.

Also I think you have to be corrupt to obtain power in most modern capitalist countries. US politicians don't make deals and take money and engage in cronyism because they get power-mad, this is the route to make the money and get the backing in order to get political power. In dictatorships nepotism and corruption are how autocrats protect their power.

"Power corrupts" is just plain abstract - what power, whose power, for what purpose, corrupt in what way? I think this saying is popular because it gives a sort of personal motivation to the lack of real democracy and transparent rule in capitalist countries. It also subtly suggests that no matter who or how power works in society, it will be just as bad as what we have now.


We dont need a "radical new kind of state" we need to abolish the state. Radical state is a contradiction in terms.How so, how do you define a state?

[00000000000]

If we define corruption as acting in your self-interest to the detriment of others, then in the current capitalist model of how nations and people are governed, the powerful are automatically corrupt. I can't personally recall many, if any, instances where the powerful have excercised their power to benefit society or the working class as a whole without gaining themselves (monetarily or otherwise)

[danyboy27]

Does power corrupt? By power it is meant, for example, that person A can use his power over person B to make person B do something that person B otherwise wouldn't have done. But please also come with your own definitions of what power is. Does power in itself corrupt, or do other factors play a role aswell? Does power corrupt due to human nature, or nuture?

Power is a good thing that everyone should have a shot at, that why i am a communist.

The problem with monarchy or dictatorship is not that power corrupt, its just that 1 or fews peoples cant possibly satisfy the need of millions of peoples, its just not possible.

When a person obtain a certain amount of power, he will indeed use it to satisfy some of his personnal need to a certain extent, that why when a worker got a good salary raise he will put the money in a new tv or a new Xbox, and that why when a dictator come to power he will get new palaces and portrait of him.

The problem is not what we do with power, its how much power can 1 person handle without fucking up. All the stress and pressure to live up to the expectations of millions of peoples would drive 90% of the peoples crazy, so its not so surprising that most dictators end up barking mad.

[Rafiq]

How exactly is it "bourgeois" to want to abolish the state

You're motivation for abolishing the state is Bourgeois, or abolishing the state as an end goal.

You have this kind of a dillusion, that, even if a proletarian state were to emerge, it would some how corrupt, due to some kind of inherit flaw within people put into positions of power.

[workersadvocate]

Class society corrupts!

[Decolonize The Left]

Power isn't held, it is exercised.

And no, power does not corrupt as "power" is a relatively meaningless term in itself as to define it you would need to isolate it from its conditions/circumstance and these conditions/circumstance determine how it is exercised and hence determine it as a whole.

- August

[Bronco]

You're motivation for abolishing the state is Bourgeois, or abolishing the state as an end goal.

You have this kind of a dillusion, that, even if a proletarian state were to emerge, it would some how corrupt, due to some kind of inherit flaw within people put into positions of power.

But Anarchists don't necessarily oppose the State because they consider people to be inherently corrupt, although I do think there is something corruptible in creating two divisive categories, one containing the vast majority considered unable to govern themselves, and one made up of those entrusted to make decisions on the others behalf. It's more that I find it difficult to see how an entire class can be institutionalised into a top-down, centralised, political power, and that the proletariat as a whole can only ever really exercise power from the bottom up, from the joining and linking up of voluntary associations and communes.

That's how I see it anyway.

[blake 3:17]

Corruption is an ethical argument. There are better, more pragmatic arguments to be made against absolute power.

What's wrong with ethics? And the OP wasn't about absolute power, just power.

My answer to the question is that power does corrupt, and servitude destroys.

[Ostrinski]

If we define corruption as acting in your self-interest to the detriment of others, then in the current capitalist model of how nations and people are governed, the powerful are automatically corrupt. I can't personally recall many, if any, instances where the powerful have excercised their power to benefit society or the working class as a whole without gaining themselves (monetarily or otherwise)Exactly. We can only imply that power can corrupt if we expect those who have the means to exercise power to not act in their interest (or in the interest of the class that enables them), and to, for some reason, act in the interest of society.

[Ostrinski]

What's wrong with ethics? And the OP wasn't about absolute power, just power.Ethics is a decadent, bourgeois system of analysis that supposes that one concrete moral conception transcends history and the change in material conditions. Thus, it is incompatible with the materialist understanding of morality.


My answer to the question is that power does corrupt, and servitude destroys.AugustWest said it best.


And no, power does not corrupt as "power" is a relatively meaningless term in itself as to define it you would need to isolate it from its conditions/circumstance and these conditions/circumstance determine how it is exercised and hence determine it as a whole.

[MotherCossack]

it is all very well discussing the definition of particular words and arguing about the typeface used in the ultimate manifesto that we will eventually produce ...
power means a whole load of stuff... in this context i reckon it is the baggage that accumulates around those few who get to tell people what to do... who are put in charge, are asked to make decisions by a body of folk [large or small.]
how they got there is one thing... a can of worms for another time...
once there...good intentions are all very well... the pigs didn't last that long, ...

i suspect that human beings are not equipped to deal with being leaders.

maybe there should be some system whereby we all get a short go... like jury service.
it should be regarded as a highly dangerous occupation with a strict maximum length of service. with lots of intermitent head checks to ensure that the boots still fit.

i know a bunch of you think that all this is nonsense, that when we get rid of the state....it will all be irrelevant ,power will cease to affect our lives and everything will be in perpetual harmony with infinite equilibrium.
but who will organise services? Who will sort out logistics . there is a lot of people on this planet... surely we need some system of delegation?

[GPDP]

Delegation is the correct way to go about it. However, it must feature a robust system of accountability, which can easily be achieved by giving the delegates no power beyond the facilitation of communication between interested parties. In other words, coordination and lawmaking will no longer be done by unaccountable professional politicians or bureaucrats doing whatever they want, but by committees and popular assemblies at various levels, who will have delegates appointed only to convey the decisions made elsewhere.

Of course, it also goes without saying delegates should be instantly recallable. If they fuck up too much or start acting like megalomaniacs, it should be possible to immediately strip them of their position. None of this bullshit we have now where we elect representatives for 4 years, and they have free reign to act as they please until the next election cycle, where we may or may not be able to vote them out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think also when you read accounts of European encounters with various small bands of people, often there are people with power, even chiefs and kings with defined roles that actually don't have the kind of personally corrupt power in the sense we are used to.

In "Myths of Male Dominance" there's descriptions of North American bands encountering Europeans and thinking it was so odd that the men were slavishly afraid of their higher-ups. People in this band routinely mocked their "leaders" and people in charge of things as a social reminder not to get a big head about it. Leaders in these societies had no real power over other people because the efforts of everyone in the band was important for their survival. The same in personal relationships: when Jesuit priests converted people they had to teach the men to force their wives and children to be obedient but the men would come back the the priests and complain that their wives and kids moved into another home.

In capitalism we have to take shit and be obedient on some level because we are divorced from the fruits of our labor. Unorganized workers have to put up with what their bosses demand or they will be replaced, often women who don't work are forced to stay in bad marriages because they have no other options for support.

I think in communism anything we might call leadership could be more like that: totally situational, organic, and temporary. Just like if you were in a group of friends and someone takes charge of deciding where to eat - they usually aren't a corrupt tyrant (well not for making that decision anyway) and someone else just has to speak up and make a good alternative suggestion in order to usurp that position. Maybe this is a silly example.

At any rate, I do think that in the time right after a revolution, there will have to be more formal accountability and rules to protect worker's power from some sort of bureaucratic counter-revolution or entrenchment of delegates: instant recall etc.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I am currently questioning my level of "faith" in humanity. One side of me thinks that there should be no 'leaders', and instead everybody directly votes on an issue. At the same time, I don't know whether I can safely trust the majority of the public to handle socialism well. I may feel like most people are too opposed to socialism, and so there needs to be order to keep it in place. Not a dictatorship, but a set of rules that everyone needs to follow.:unsure:

[Q]

I am currently questioning my level of "faith" in humanity. One side of me thinks that there should be no 'leaders', and instead everybody directly votes on an issue. At the same time, I don't know whether I can safely trust the majority of the public to handle socialism well. I may feel like most people are too opposed to socialism, and so there needs to be order to keep it in place. Not a dictatorship, but a set of rules that everyone needs to follow.:unsure:

Yes, socialism is not at all about worker self-emancipation. As real communists, we know what is best for them. They better listen.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Yes, socialism is not at all about worker self-emancipation. As real communists, we know what is best for them. They better listen.

I'm sorry, but I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or serious.

[GPDP]

I'm sorry, but I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or serious.

Better get your sarcasm meter fixed.

Although honestly? I can sort of understand. There really are "communists" who think this way.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Better get your sarcasm meter fixed.

Although honestly? I can sort of understand. There really are "communists" who think this way.

What do you mean? I feel really stupid right now.

[GPDP]

What do you mean? I feel really stupid right now.

Q was being sarcastic. I said I'm not surprised you would think he maybe isn't, because there are some people who say that and are serious.

[Q]

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

Also, I feel like your avatar right now. Or mine for that matter. Or even GPDP's for that matter.

I'm pretty clear on where I stand politically, for example on my blog here on Revleft, so either you didn't care to investigate or I guess you're new.

[MegaBrah]

Does power corrupt? By power it is meant, for example, that person A can use his power over person B to make person B do something that person B otherwise wouldn't have done. But please also come with your own definitions of what power is. Does power in itself corrupt, or do other factors play a role aswell? Does power corrupt due to human nature, or nuture?

Do bears shit in the woods?

Hierachal systems produce inequality and a class society. Any man who wants to place himself above me better be the better man and don't no one qualify :)

[Q]

Hierachal systems produce inequality and a class society.
No they don't.

Class society is fundamentally based on the mode of production.

Hierarchies on themselves are not an expression of oppression. For example, within an organisation one can have a functional hierarchy just fine. Is that corruption or oppression? Of course not.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do bears shit in the woods?

Hierachal systems produce inequality and a class society. Any man who wants to place himself above me better be the better man and don't no one qualify :)

Class society maintains inequality through hierarchical systems.

It's base and superstructure. Think about it: if people were living in egalitarian bands, why would they develop or join a corrupt or repressive hierarchical system? How would things develop in this way?

[Desperado]

People tend to act in their own interests. When these interests are antagonistic to the interests of others and when one group or person has power over the other, then it becomes an exploitative relationship. But, as most of those with power justify it for some other reason, representing a false community of interests - the (exploiting) capitalist is required for efficiency and value, the (abusive) father is caring and protective - we say that the power is corrupt - not doing the moral purpose it says on the tin.

Communism transcends most of this as in it our own interests coincide with the interests of others, hence it requires little forcing of others against their will.

One of Marx's main points is that the main antagonistic groups of interests are those of class, and that most other antagonistic relationships (racism, sexism, between people and the state) stem from this. Certain anarchists or those involved in these other struggles (feminists, black-nationalists) might disagree.

[MegaBrah]

but capitalism and the current mode of production is hierachial by its very nature, so yes hierachy does produce class society.If my boss is extracting surplus value off my labour, thats Hierachal.
Private ownership of the means of production in and of itself is a violent and hierachal act, the same as the fuedal mode of production was.If you abolished Hierachy then capitalism would become abolished, so really yes, what I said was correct.
If society was not based on hierachy then capitalism and all other systems and oppressive modes of production would not have come into existance.

Note Hierachy is not one dude being more popular than another, thats something totally different and rather crude to use to justify a semantic point.

[Desperado]

Note Hierachy is not one dude being more popular than another, thats something totally different and rather crude to use to justify a semantic point.

Well, there's hierarchies of ability and of control, and the two are quite related. If I'm stronger than my brother I can also physically coerce him to do stuff for me.

[MegaBrah]

Well, there's hierarchies of ability and of control, and the two are quite related. If I'm stronger than my brother I can also physically coerce him to do stuff for me.


I am talking about systemic hierachy and economic disparity based on hierachal economic mode of production, this is not related to being able to make your brother make you a grilled cheese.

[Jimmie Higgins]

but capitalism and the current mode of production is hierachial by its very nature, so yes hierachy does produce class society.If my boss is extracting surplus value off my labour, thats Hierachal.There's a connection, but I think the idea that hierarchy creates class is idealism or at least an inverted way of looking at the development of these things.

People didn't conceive of hierarchy first - why would they do this what motivated them, why would anyone go along with someone calling themselves a king? Unaccountable (to those on the bottom anyway) hierarchy it flows out of class society and a minority class needed to insulate their positions from the majority of society as well as convince all of society their position in society is somehow normal or even the natural order (many pre-capitalist class societies) or is somehow more efficient or those at the top know better and are more skilled (bourgeois society).

To argue that hierarchy creates, rather than is one tool to maintain, hierarchy implies that people created hierarchies and then figured out economic systems and ways of producing goods that fits into a hierarchical model. In my opinion it's like arguing that people created pants so that their suspenders could attach to something.


Private ownership of the means of production in and of itself is a violent and hierachal act, the same as the fuedal mode of production was.If you abolished Hierachy then capitalism would become abolished, so really yes, what I said was correct.I agree with this, but I think it's abstract. You can equally argue that if you knock down pillars you destroy the building, but pillars in themselves do not make a building. In other ways hierarchy is to class society what pillars are to a building. Pillars are essential to a certain kind of building, but people didn't invent pillars and then get the idea for buildings.


If society was not based on hierachy then capitalism and all other systems and oppressive modes of production would not have come into existance.So if you have pre-class society, what process and what motivating factors made them change to a hierarchical class system?

[MegaBrah]

There's a connection, but I think the idea that hierarchy creates class is idealism or at least an inverted way of looking at the development of these things.

People didn't conceive of hierarchy first - why would they do this what motivated them, why would anyone go along with someone calling themselves a king? Unaccountable (to those on the bottom anyway) hierarchy it flows out of class society and a minority class needed to insulate their positions from the majority of society as well as convince all of society their position in society is somehow normal or even the natural order (many pre-capitalist class societies) or is somehow more efficient or those at the top know better and are more skilled (bourgeois society).

To argue that hierarchy creates, rather than is one tool to maintain, hierarchy implies that people created hierarchies and then figured out economic systems and ways of producing goods that fits into a hierarchical model. In my opinion it's like arguing that people created pants so that their suspenders could attach to something.

I agree with this, but I think it's abstract. You can equally argue that if you knock down pillars you destroy the building, but pillars in themselves do not make a building. In other ways hierarchy is to class society what pillars are to a building. Pillars are essential to a certain kind of building, but people didn't invent pillars and then get the idea for buildings.

So if you have pre-class society, what process and what motivating factors made them change to a hierarchical class system?

Well your point it seems is easily disproveable, hierachies of groups, into tribes into countires and kingdoms did proceed any advanced economic system.

The first step forward in the mode of production was the nomadic and agrarian kind to a fuedal one, how if Hierachy did not predate class did the emergence of fuedalism come about?

One family or tribe in specific parts of the world rose to power to dominate the rest, then out of these groups reaching the top of the hierachy a leap in the mode of production occured and we then saw serf, guildmaster etc etc, new classes performing their own servitude to the ruling class.

Then we saw the bourgeoisie tearing down the fuedal order, the division of labour, competition and the transformation of the mode of production to what we have now, advanced capitalism, industrial and global.

Before the classes emerged, there was hierachal relations where tribes and then kings and nations rose to power, well nations maybe later but kings and tribes did to a large extent predate class society, hte first ones that is.

[MegaBrah]

[QUOTE=So if you have pre-class society, what process and what motivating factors made them change to a hierarchical class system?[/QUOTE]


The drive to dominate the competition and pull themselves out of the cespit of nature into a static stable civilisation and to meet their want and need for material conditions to improve their lives, even if at the misery of others, as we saw with awrring tribes, klans etc etc.

[Firebrand]

So if you have pre-class society, what process and what motivating factors made them change to a hierarchical class system?

Fundamentally as I understand it it is a slow process that arises from the development of a surplus and agriculture. While hunter gatherer societies do often have chiefs etc, it is not the same sort of thing as a hiararchy where some benefit from the work of others.

The shift to a situation where there is a ruling class generally happens because it becomes necessary to adopt new modes of production that require some individuals to act as coordinators, rather than actively working in the fields. It also often becomes necessary for these coordinators to be given control over the surplus in order to plan and maintain production in the future, and make sure that in times of shortage enough of the surplus is stored to tide the population over.

When famines etc do occur it is often necessary for these co-ordinators to ration food, as the rationing becomes more acute it becomes necessary for them to use force to a) keep people working even while starving and b) make sure that the rations are kept to.

This situation can lead the coordinators to see that forcible control of the general population by them is necessary for the society to survive. They then start to see their continued good health and survival as vital to the survival of the community and therefore increase their own rations accordingly. As the shortage continues it is harder for this class of co-ordinators to maintain control so they persuade the strongest members of the population to protect the food stores in exchange for increased rations. When the famine ends the coordinators find themselves in a position of power, they have soldiers to protect their position and they are better off than most of the population. There is now a class society.

It happens bit by bit as a response to matierial conditions.

[MotherCossack]

i suspect that human beings are not equipped to deal with being leaders.

maybe there should be some system whereby we all get a short go... like jury service.
it should be regarded as a highly dangerous occupation with a strict maximum length of service. with lots of intermitent head checks to ensure that the boots still fit.
[QUOTE]- myself-

you know what.... mother cossack..... thats not a bad idea!!!!!!

[Q]

i suspect that human beings are not equipped to deal with being leaders.

maybe there should be some system whereby we all get a short go... like jury service.
it should be regarded as a highly dangerous occupation with a strict maximum length of service. with lots of intermitent head checks to ensure that the boots still fit.
- myself-

you know what.... mother cossack..... thats not a bad idea!!!!!!

It's called demarchy today and is the way Athenian democracy operated in ancient times (be it in a limited way). This system was regarded by Plato (if I'm not mistaken) to be the ruling system of the poor (and he was not known for his democratic views). And I would say he was correct as such a "lottery democracy" where ministers are replaced by councils (for example, a council of education as opposed to a minister of education) and where lotteries would be held after short periods (such as every year) and where all allotted would get a normal wage, would indeed lead to a policy where the society as a collective genuinely rules over itself and since the working class is a vast majority in the capitalist core countries, this would be what Marx and Engels envisioned as the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[CommieCarlene]

I think it depends on the person , they can eitherhave good or bad intentions, they my also be a good or bad inturperator of whats right or wrong. So there are a lot of factors of how power can be considered corrupt . but there's really no way to tell .

[Q]

I think it depends on the person , they can eitherhave good or bad intentions, they my also be a good or bad inturperator of whats right or wrong. So there are a lot of factors of how power can be considered corrupt . but there's really no way to tell .

Hence we need a system where no one person or a small group of persons have their ultimate say over the whole of society. See my previous post for one such solution.

[MotherCossack]

It's called demarchy today and is the way Athenian democracy operated in ancient times (be it in a limited way). This system was regarded by Plato (if I'm not mistaken) to be the ruling system of the poor (and he was not known for his democratic views). And I would say he was correct as such a "lottery democracy" where ministers are replaced by councils (for example, a council of education as opposed to a minister of education) and where lotteries would be held after short periods (such as every year) and where all allotted would get a normal wage, would indeed lead to a policy where the society as a collective genuinely rules over itself and since the working class is a vast majority in the capitalist core countries, this would be what Marx and Engels envisioned as the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

i am a bit thick at the moment [ there is nothing like the death of a priceless close family member for putting a spanner in the works, metaphorically speaking]
and so, in the interests of clarity can i just make sure.... does this nean you are in favour.....

[Q]

i am a bit thick at the moment [ there is nothing like the death of a priceless close family member for putting a spanner in the works, metaphorically speaking]
and so, in the interests of clarity can i just make sure.... does this nean you are in favour.....

Yes, I'm strongly in favor of demarchy. But we are in a minority so far on this forum or the wider far left for that matter.

[Desperado]

I am talking about systemic hierachy and economic disparity based on hierachal economic mode of production, this is not related to being able to make your brother make you a grilled cheese.

The analogy works perfectly. The hierarchy of the capitalists owning capital and the workers owning none results in the social hierarchy of control and exploitation.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I'm pretty clear on where I stand politically, for example on my blog here on Revleft, so either you didn't care to investigate or I guess you're new.

:laugh:

Nah, I don't read every single thing written by people.

[KR]

One cannot abolish the state, as long as we still have a class society
Because i say so:rolleyes: Do you have anything to back this up?

[KR]

I agree with Q's posts totally.

Also I think you have to be corrupt to obtain power in most modern capitalist countries. US politicians don't make deals and take money and engage in cronyism because they get power-mad, this is the route to make the money and get the backing in order to get political power. In dictatorships nepotism and corruption are how autocrats protect their power.

"Power corrupts" is just plain abstract - what power, whose power, for what purpose, corrupt in what way? I think this saying is popular because it gives a sort of personal motivation to the lack of real democracy and transparent rule in capitalist countries. It also subtly suggests that no matter who or how power works in society, it will be just as bad as what we have now.

How so, how do you define a state?
An entity that exist separately from the rest of society and has the sole authority to enforce laws on it's people and maintains a monopoly on force. The reason a state cannot be radical is because it will always be misused by people for they own gain and will be used to oppress the people, who are not allowed to govern themselves because of the state.

[Q]

Because i say so:rolleyes: Do you have anything to back this up?

Yes, such as the rest of post 12 you forgot to quote and post 6.

[Deicide]

Here's a thought experiment.

If the bourgeoisie offered you unfathomable wealth, e.g, ''here's 500 million dollars! You can live like a king! All you have to do... Is abandon this foolish hope for a revolution, forget those comrades, betray them, come be one of us!''

I'm inclined to believe that most people would accept this offer within one heart beat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So if you have pre-class society, what process and what motivating factors made them change to a hierarchical class system?


Fundamentally as I understand it it is a slow process that arises from the development of a surplus and agriculture. While hunter gatherer societies do often have chiefs etc, it is not the same sort of thing as a hiararchy where some benefit from the work of others. It was a rhetorical question. This is how I view it as well, I was arguing against the idea that people first created a hierarchy and then somehow used that system to develop the surplus and division of labor - rather, than as you argue, class and then the hierarchical structures that bolster it developed in a process... I agree.

I disagree, however, with the answer to this question as presented below:


The drive to dominate the competition and pull themselves out of the cespit of nature into a static stable civilisation and to meet their want and need for material conditions to improve their lives, even if at the misery of others, as we saw with awrring tribes, klans etc etc.So people living before class society wanted class society to pull themselves out of the "cespit of nature" and into a "static stable civilization"? If you didn't know what class society looked like or had no idea what future civilization looked like, how would be able to pull yourself towards it? Your argument is an idealist conception of the development of class societies... some (elitist) people thought it would be better to have hierarchy and class and so tried to build it. A materialist conception of this process is that the physical conditions and the ways in which people produced what they needed changed and then how people related to that process changed. So when people developed a stable surplus through farming, it was no longer necessary for everyone to farm since things would just go to waste after a certain point, but there was not enough surplus for all people not have to farm much and so divisions of labor arose where some farmed, some made goods and tools, others did other tasks, and some managed the surplus.

Those who didn't create but managed and tracked the surplus eventually became more of a caste or class where they would develop accounting and writing skills, pass those onto their family. They had to develop ways to protect their position and justify it and so they often became the priests or chiefs and might develop religious reasons for their position or claim that their labor actually made the deities happy or not and could produce more abundance or not. As societies got more complex and had more distinct classes, whole ideologies and hierarchical structures were developed to maintain the stability of these class systems.

[Ostrinski]

Here's a thought experiment.

If the bourgeoisie offered you unfathomable wealth, e.g, ''here's 500 million dollars! You can live like a king! All you have to do... Is abandon this foolish hope for a revolution, forget those comrades, betray them, come be one of us!''

I'm inclined to believe that most people would accept this offer within one heart beat.Except that hope isn't what begets revolution. For the record, if I was offered 500 million dollars, I would take it. Idk why anyone wouldn't. Money is precious in capitalist society.

[Revolution starts with U]

The moral quandry wasn't just taking the 500 million. The quandry was would you take it only if in exchange you had to give up all hope and support for revolution, and betray the working class.

Of course if it's a hand-free 500 million, you'd either have to be idiotic or a primitivist not to take it.