Power corrupts

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I guess everyone has heard how Anarchists oppose the State, authority and hierarchy on the grounds that power corrupts. Even though I am a sort of an Anarchist, after reading Marxist literature I find this explanation unsatisfactory to say the least.

Marx has said that if we could know the truth based on appearances we wouldn't need science, or something to that effect. And one can observe how people, once in power, tend to get "corrupted", say the gradual move towards corruption of great proportions in American Federation of Labour, gradual move of the Labour Parties to the right, gradual shift of the USSR to the right at least as early as after Stalin's death etc. etc. I guess one could find ample amount of examples.

So if one observe these situations, s/he could say that what was common under all these circumstances was that hierarchy and authority existed, which then led to the rulers getting corrupted and drifting the entire organization with them, away from revolutionary ideas.

However, I would say that it's not that much that power corrupts in any metaphysical sense, but that material realities allow or rather force these organizations to shift to the right. More specifically, I look at these organizations as a product of class struggle in a capitalist environment, however, once you establish an authority, a hierarchy, a power structure, it might stifle the participation of the masses, i.e. stifle the class struggle, which then leads to the authorities gradually shifting to the right due to decreasing proportions of class struggle and capitalist environment to which these authorities are necessarily exposed to.

So it's not that much that power corrupt in a non-materialist sense that Anarchist talk or should talk about, but that it corrupts precisely in a materialist sense, where authoritarian organization bars masses from decisions making and, hence, weakens the class struggle or rather militancy of the masses, which then leads the authorities to drift to the right over time as they are surrounded by capitalist social relations and whatnot.

These are just random thoughts of mine, I would like to hear yours now.

[The Feral Underclass]

I guess everyone has heard how Anarchists oppose the State, authority and hierarchy on the grounds that power corrupts.

Yes, I've heard it, but it's wrong. Anarchism's critique of the state, authority and hierarchy is not based upon the idea of 'power corrupting.' This is a fallacy perpetuated by either opportunistic opponents of anarchism or by stupid anarchists who don't know what they're talking about.

I didn't read passed this comment. Since it forms the entire premise of your post, I didn't see much point.

[Tim Cornelis]

Labour parties moving to the right is not a question of "power corrupting" but of pragmatism and realpolitiek, responding to globalisation which increased competitiveness between national economies, and the mobility of capital, which required neoliberalism to accommodate it. I've never heard an anarchist describe the process of moving rightward as corruption of power. Similarly, the shift 'rightward' of the Soviet Union was a result of material circumstances, market reforms were initiated to combat stagnation which resulted from managers sabotaging and obstructing the implementation of innovative reforms, and diminishing returns on the mobilisation of Russia's impressive amount of resources, which had fully been mobilised circa 1950. Again, this is not what's referred to as "power corrupting". Usually what's meant is that Stalin became an evil person as a result of him having (absolute) power over the USSR. I disagree, power does not corrupt, the fear of losing power does. Stalin was afraid of losing it, Gadaffi was, Castro was/is, and enacted repression to keep power (and safeguard the 'revolutionary gains').

[cyu]

I'd say it's somewhat similar to this

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j8blbkRShoY/T9G2tw9plmI/AAAAAAAAASE/7SlLPFMPpZA/s640/hammer-nail.jpg

In other words, once you're in power, you have this new tool available to you that others do not. And if you're lazy, tired, or frustrated, it is so much easier to use this tool if it can get you results faster than what you had to rely on before getting in power. It's like people who are rich learn many ways to get what they want by using money. People in the military learn many ways to get what they want by threat of violence. Or attractive / charismatic people learn to use the tools available to them to get what they want.

Anyway, see also actual research at http://www.revleft.com/vb/proof-plutocrats-unfit-t180387/index.html

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Labour parties moving to the right is not a question of "power corrupting" but of pragmatism and realpolitiek, responding to globalisation which increased competitiveness between national economies, and the mobility of capital, which required neoliberalism to accommodate it. I've never heard an anarchist describe the process of moving rightward as corruption of power. Similarly, the shift 'rightward' of the Soviet Union was a result of material circumstances, market reforms were initiated to combat stagnation which resulted from managers sabotaging and obstructing the implementation of innovative reforms, and diminishing returns on the mobilisation of Russia's impressive amount of resources, which had fully been mobilised circa 1950. Again, this is not what's referred to as "power corrupting". Usually what's meant is that Stalin became an evil person as a result of him having (absolute) power over the USSR. I disagree, power does not corrupt, the fear of losing power does. Stalin was afraid of losing it, Gadaffi was, Castro was/is, and enacted repression to keep power (and safeguard the 'revolutionary gains').

The bolded part is simply another way of saying that, well, power corrupts. But that's precisely my contention - I don't find such explanation satisfactory. Even if that's true, the point of my post is that (one of the reasons why) we should oppose authority is not that power corrupts, but that concentration of power tends to weaken the militancy of the masses, which then leads to negative outcomes.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is power? You are talking about power, but what is it actually?

[Thirsty Crow]

The idea that power corrupts implies that the underlying principle is to focus on the moral qualities of certain people.

Now, of course, this completely disregards the structures within which people act in certain ways that they themselves can't change (or in other words, these structures shape the field of possible actions and impose imperatives; though, these are nothing mysterious, but of human's own making and represent particular ways humans organize their life).

Needless to say, I don't think that any pro-revolutionary should adopt this idealist framework of thought, be they more inclined to the anarchist or Marxist tradition.

[Loony Le Fist]

Yes, I've heard it, but it's wrong. Anarchism's critique of the state, authority and hierarchy is not based upon the idea of 'power corrupting.' This is a fallacy perpetuated by either opportunistic opponents of anarchism or by stupid anarchists who don't know what they're talking about.

I didn't read passed this comment. Since it forms the entire premise of your post, I didn't see much point.

Are you always this friendly, or are you just going out of your way? :rolleyes: Not caring what other people think isn't an excuse to be an asshole. Frankly, I don't know why the mods put up with your rudeness and rulebreaking so much. But I digress...


I guess everyone has heard how Anarchists oppose the State, authority and hierarchy on the grounds that power corrupts. Even though I am a sort of an Anarchist, after reading Marxist literature I find this explanation unsatisfactory to say the least.


TAT, similar to broken clocks, is actually right here. Anarchists don't reject the state necessarily because power corrupts, though that's perhaps a somewhat valid reason. As is customary when you wish to offer input, I will elaborate. Anarchists generally reject that there can exist self-justifying authorities. Though some anarchists would claim that there are no justified authorities. I'm not sure I would take that position. My reason for rejecting the state, is because it is a self-justifying authority. I believe many anarchists would agree.

Perhaps TAT being an anarchist himself could elaborate. I look forward to his rude and impolite disagreement with my views. :laugh:



Marx has said that if we could know the truth based on appearances we wouldn't need science, or something to that effect...


Agreed.



So if one observe these situations, s/he could say that what was common under all these circumstances was that hierarchy and authority existed, which then led to the rulers getting corrupted and drifting the entire organization with them, away from revolutionary ideas.


I would say without any kind of accountability this is precisely what one would expect to happen.



However, I would say that it's not that much that power corrupts in any metaphysical sense, but that material realities allow or rather force these organizations to shift to the right. More specifically, I look at these organizations as a product of class struggle in a capitalist environment, however, once you establish an authority, a hierarchy, a power structure, it might stifle the participation of the masses, i.e. stifle the class struggle, which then leads to the authorities gradually shifting to the right due to decreasing proportions of class struggle and capitalist environment to which these authorities are necessarily exposed to.


I would say that unaccountable and unjustified authorities will gradually become more authoritarian. In fact I would estimate that this would have in 2/3 of cases. We have experimental evidence here, as a matter of fact.



So it's not that much that power corrupt in a non-materialist sense...


Yes. But again, I would probably be more precise, and say that unaccountable and unjustified authority corrupts people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Are you always this friendly, or are you just going out of your way? :rolleyes: Not caring what other people think isn't an excuse to be an asshole. Frankly, I don't know why the mods put up with your rudeness and rulebreaking so much. But I digress...

I wasn't being rude or being an asshole, I explained in a matter of fact tone why he was wrong and why I only responded to one aspect of his post. If any thing I was being courteous.

The fact that you constantly misinterpret my posts is a statement on your attitude more than anything else. But why would that be surprising considering your endeavours to spread malicious and spiteful rumours about me.

I would be careful how you frame your criticisms. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.




Perhaps TAT being an anarchist himself could elaborate. I look forward to his rude and impolite disagreement with my views. :laugh:

When you have apologised for calling me an asshole and accusing me of being rude, as well as apologised for spreading the rumour that I am a paedophile, I will be happy to elucidate my views. Until then, I have no interest in enlightening you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BIXX]

TAT, similar to broken clocks, is actually right here.

If TAT I'd right twice a day then they're right more than the average revlefter anyway.

[bropasaran]

So it's not that much that power corrupt in a non-materialist sense that Anarchist talk or should talk about
Wat? The whole point of the notion of "power corrupts" is that people are influenced by their material conditions, here- their position in a hierarchy.


A.2.15 What about "human nature"?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215

B.1.1 What are the effects of authoritarian social relationships?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html#secb11

Mikhail Bakunin, Power Corrupts The Best
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1867/power-corrupts.htm

[Quail]

Can we keep this civil? There's no excuse for the hostility, loonyleftist.

[Sea]

Yes, I've heard it, but it's wrong. Anarchism's critique of the state, authority and hierarchy is not based upon the idea of 'power corrupting.' This is a fallacy perpetuated by either opportunistic opponents of anarchism or by stupid anarchists who don't know what they're talking about.

I didn't read passed this comment. Since it forms the entire premise of your post, I didn't see much point.So basically the objection is that anarchism will corrupt everyone equally? Count me in! :laugh:

[AnaRchic]

Power indeed can corrupt, which is why we must strive for minimum hierarchy and maximum democracy in any of our organizations. A certain centralism, in the sense of unitary action, is not in and of itself a bad thing. But we must ensure that both our parties/organizations and any future revolutionary power is as participatory and democratic as possible.

Power corrupts when the leadership becomes detached from the masses, and the masses detached from the leadership. We must ensure that any leadership is elected, revokable, and in service of the masses whom they lead. Honestly even anarchists have leaders, and have historically played leadership roles such as the FAI/CNT in Spain. Anarchist organizations are not immune to this very tendency of concentrating power. Nestor Mahkno stands out as an expample, in certain instances, of how even Anarchist leadership can degenerate and impose itself on those very forces it is trying to lead.

The tendency toward concentration of power is a real danger and is something we must all thoroughly study and understand, and we must be ever-vigilant to prevent it and combat it whenever it arises.

[The Feral Underclass]

Power indeed can corrupt

Can you explain the physiological process involved in such a thing?


Power corrupts when the leadership becomes detached from the masses, and the masses detached from the leadership.


You just said that power corrupts people and now you're saying that power itself corrupts. Which is it?

Also, what is power? I have still not received a response to my question. What is 'corruption'? What does that look like in practice? What is it about this, as of yet, mystical thing called 'power' that causes detachment and causes this 'corruption'?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Also, what is power? I have still not received a response to my question.

Do you want a philosophical discussion on that or can you accept the definition as an authority over people?

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you want a philosophical discussion on that or can you accept the definition as an authority over people?

Well, I want to a discussion that articulates what power is. I don't think 'an authority over people' is really a satisfactory response when you consider the context of this thread. If power corrupts and we have to seek to abolish it, how do you imagine that we will defend ourselves from reactionaries

In any case, surely having 'authority over people' is a consequence of power, rather than what power is

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Well, I want to a discussion that articulates what power is. I don't think 'an authority over people' is really a satisfactory response when you consider the context of this thread. If power corrupts and we have to seek to abolish it, how do you imagine that we will defend ourselves from reactionaries

In any case, surely having 'authority over people' is a consequence of power, rather than what power is

What would make you say that it's a consequence of power, not power itself? You can't have power without having authority over someone else and you can't have authority over someone else without power, for me it seems that it's one and the same thing. I fail to see the difference, I hope you will elaborate.

Just a hypothetical - why can't we defend ourselves from reactionaries without someone in power or without someone having authority over us? It seems entirely obvious to me that we can do so.

And I don't think it's that much about authority or power in itself, but rather where it lies. I think there is all the difference in the world between authority/power lying in the hands of the whole proletariat as opposed to the hand of the Party.

[cyu]

In political terms, I would say power typically exists when one part of society has control of the weapons and other parts of society do not (political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and all). I would say that power becomes corrupting when the armed portion believes they can act with impunity. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

I'd say a drop of empathy also plays a part. When you are given power over others (like a boss, manager, superior officer, teacher, or parent) you are able to do negative things to them, and they are unable to respond. Why should you have the right to do such things, while others don't? I'd say many people will rationalize their position and usage of power by suppressing their empathic counter-arguments, and try to find comfort in arguments that their "inferiors" deserve what they get.

General feelings of superiority also play a part in suppressing empathy - whether it's racists being more willing to attack "inferior" humans, the wealthy claiming the poor do not deserve to survive, or government officials believing they are more important than their people. You can see it in the movies too - if the writers plan to have the villain die at the end of the movie, they have to make sure the audience will cheer his death rather than be horrified by it - to do so, just before the villain dies, the writers try to ensure the audience feels superior to the villain (often through "moral superiority").

[The Feral Underclass]

What would make you say that it's a consequence of power, not power itself?

Because 'authority over someone' is a subjective, abstract concept. If we are to understand your definition, you are essentially making an idealist argument, and I reject the notion that phenomenon (for want of a better word) derives from some subjectivity.

I have authority over my child, but does that mean I have power over them? A doctor has authority over a lay-person, does that mean they have power over them?

For power to 'be', it must derive from something objective. Having authority over someone is a consequence of power that 'is', having derived from something. For example, the ruling class has power over the working class because it controls the means by which we subsist. Whomever controls the means of production has power, and ergo their authority derives from that fact.


You can't have power without having authority over someone else and you can't have authority over someone else without power

I don't agree. The ruling class have power over the working class, but do they have authority? Authority is an abstract concept that in most cases, if not all cases, requires some sort of consent.

The ruling class may derive authority from its control over the means of production (power), but if the working class refuse to co-operate with that authority, or abide by its rules, then they no longer have authority over any one, since their authority, abstract and subjective, can no longer be justified to those who refuse to submit to it. They do, however, continue to maintain power, since we cannot subsist without the means of production, which they control.


Just a hypothetical - why can't we defend ourselves from reactionaries without someone in power or without someone having authority over us? It seems entirely obvious to me that we can do so.

You're conflating two things. Power and someone in power are not the same thing. We don't require someone to be 'in power' to defend ourselves, but we do require power as an objective 'phenomenon'.


And I don't think it's that much about authority or power in itself, but rather where it lies. I think there is all the difference in the world between authority/power lying in the hands of the whole proletariat as opposed to the hand of the Party.

Yes, but what is that power the proletariat should have in its hands?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Because 'authority over someone' is a subjective, abstract concept. If we are to understand your definition, you are essentially making an idealist argument, and I reject the notion that phenomenon (for want of a better word) derives from some subjectivity.

I have authority over my child, but does that mean I have power over them? A doctor has authority over a lay-person, does that mean they have power over them?

For power to 'be', it must derive from something objective. Having authority over someone is a consequence of power that 'is', having derived from something. For example, the ruling class has power over the working class because it controls the means by which we subsist. Whomever controls the means of production has power, and ergo their authority derives from that fact.

Very interesting thoughts. But why can't it derive from something subjective? A priest or a church might have power over religious people or some particular strata of religious people, but does a church or a priest derive its authority or power from something material?


I don't agree. The ruling class have power over the working class, but do they have authority? Authority is an abstract concept that in most cases, if not all cases, requires some sort of consent.

The ruling class may derive authority from its control over the means of production (power), but if the working class refuse to co-operate with that authority, or abide by its rules, then they no longer have authority over any one, since their authority, abstract and subjective, can no longer be justified to those who refuse to submit to it. They do, however, continue to maintain power, since we cannot subsist without the means of production, which they control.

Well, I guess you were using "authority" differently from me, but, hey, English is my second language. But I guess I can see my fault now.


You're conflating two things. Power and someone in power are not the same thing. We don't require someone to be 'in power' to defend ourselves, but we do require power as an objective 'phenomenon'.

Yes, but what is that power the proletariat should have in its hands?

Could we say that our power would be derived from controlling arms? I guess us controlling arms would be an objective material fact from which would could derive power. To an extent that bourgeois would control arms as well, the power would be decided through the violent struggle. Do you think it makes sense?

[bropasaran]

Can you explain the physiological process involved in such a thing?

"Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1867/power-corrupts.htm

[The Feral Underclass]

"Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1867/power-corrupts.htm

That doesn't answer my question.