absolute power...

[truthaddict11]

does absolute power corrupt absolutly? would Trotsky become corrupt with power if he lead the soviet union instead of Stalin?

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Power does corrupt everyone. To what extent depends on the person.

[TXsocialist]

Well, the SU was destined to fail, even under Lenin...

I think the M-folks(forgot the name...) could have done better, in another time and place of course.

[truthaddict11]

menshelviks?

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Rebelde para Siempre on 2:46 am on Jan. 18, 2003
Power does corrupt everyone. To what extent depends on the person.


well said... I'm with you on that one.

[Geddan]

Power does indeed corrupt, however, it is unnecessary to discuss "what if?"-scenarios, that won't help anyone. What the Soviet Union did good at was industrializing the country, but it reverted to capitalism because of the lack of material conditions for communism. If someone overthrows Russia today, however, things will look different.

[Xvall]

Power is non-existant, in the sense that people see it now adays. Power is entirely personal. I will explain more, if you wish.

[chamo]

Power is not intended to corrupt, it is intended to enlighten and improve. However we have seen that it does not do this and that it does do this. So absolute power can corrupt absolutly and it may not. It all depends on the leader or the tyrant.

[Lardlad95]

very true

even Martin Luther King Jr. had skeletons in his closet

so I doubt their is anyone who would never be corrupt

[Xvall]

I guess I'll go into it. I'm bored and need to type something. Probably might not make sense to you, but I'll talk anyways.

The present concept of power is incorrect. In all aspects, power is non-existent outside of each individual being. No person has any power whatsoever over another. The only power that exists in our universe is the power over one’s own self. Willpower. Some people happen to have an immense amount of this power, some people seem to have none at all. The Germans didn’t invade Europe because Adolph Hitler had an immense amount of power. Adolph Hitler was one man. In reality, he had no power over anyone. He could not force people to do anything. He was just a person. He was not able to enter someone’s mind and force them to carry out his orders. The reason people obeyed and killed for him was not because he was all powerful, but because they themselves lacked power over their own minds. They obeyed him because they were too weak and pathetic to make decisions on their own. They needed someone else to make these decisions for them. Regardless of what these decisions were, they obeyed them; they needed someone else to set their course of life because they themselves were to stupid to do so. The same happens today. People lack power over themselves and as a consequence, become influenced easily by other people under the belief that following the person’s orders would crate a feeling of strength and discipline. The things people do are the product of their decision, and not the decision of their leader. No one grabs a soldiers finger, and physically forces him to pull the trigger. He does that on his own because he thinks that it will make him feel more powerful; more important. It does the opposite. It only demonstrates the immense amount of power lacking in order to make personal decisions. Power over other people is not real. And something that is not real can not corrupt. People think they have power over others, but they do not. In order to attain a position of 'absolute power', one must have control over both their mind and their body. Only then will they be immune to the subjections of others.

[mentalbunny]

Drake, I think your definition is feasible but it is not quite how I see things.

Take Stalin, he had power because he could kill someone and then people were scared of him, they would not stand up to him and if they did they were simply squashed. However was he previously not corrupt? I don't know enough about Stalin to anser this but I would like to know what other people think.

When you can do nearly anything you want, it must be very tempting to do anything you want, so, yes power does corrupt.

Power is a strange commodity, it cannot really be measured and we never seem to restrict it until it is to late.

How do we create a society where everyone has equal power or power does not corrupt the one who holds it?

[Xvall]

I understand what you are saying mental. But I am just stating that the reason Stalin was able to kill anyone he wanted was not because he had something special; but because the people who followed his orders were to weak and helpless to make decicions on their own, thereby willingly following orders. Stalin could not just kill anyone with his bare hands. He had people do it for him. I completely understand what you are saying; However I am stating that I do not beleve power, other than power over oneself, does not exist.

[mentalbunny]

First let me say how nice it is to be having a proper discussion with someone!

Ok, right, I think what you are saying extends as far as his advisors or whatever he had, the second highest level in the system who carried out his orders. Obviously they either came to the same conclusions as he did or they were to weak to think for themselves and thus had his ideas thrust into their heads and couldn't see any different.

But then you get the average citizen of the nation and they obey through fear, which could be called a lack of will power but most people seperate the two.

I would like to know if anyone has any answers for my last question in my previous post.

[KickMcCann]

I think the answer is this:

Like Drake said above, true power lies in each individual; as such, you cannot create a society free of corruption from the top down by making laws and declarations. The only way a society free of corruption will ever exist is if it is built from the bottom up. A society in which every citizen has a true understanding of power and themselves.
I guess you would have to take the best and brightest people from existing societies, and build a new society out of them. But because that certain realization about existence has to sprout in each individual independently, you cannot expect the society to continue through future generations, unless there is a way to teach people that kind of inner enlightenment on life. And there's no gaurantee they would adhere to those ideas forever.
That is a tough one.

[TheDerminator]

Many generalities tend towards the banal and the same can be said of this old chestnut that all power corrupts. Intrinsically, it has little notion of democratic control and is centred on the mythological isolated individual.
Power in any society is conditioned by who actually is in control. In capitalist society control is handed over to party functionairies rather than being participatory. In my view the more worker's control the better and the latter makes it harder for corruption to develop.
Power does not need to corrupt the individual, if it is practised with democratic controls.

derminated

[Spartaco]

I might have misunderstood what drake was saying but lets say we have ten people with guns and 100 without and the 100 people without guns decided to do what the ten told them to not to be killed. Wouldnt that decision (between obeying and dying brought about by their will) have been provoked by the gun, the power instead of the inability of the 100 to think?

[mentalbunny]

Spartaco, I would agree, but I think from Drake's point of view their fear means they do not have the same strength of will power, at least that's how I understand what he says.

[Saint-Just]

The power being referred to here is the power of one individual or a group of people over an individual or group of people.

The term power referring to the power of one over another (or many over many, many over one etc.) refers in one instance to a circumstance in which the subordinate in this relationship does what the superior commands because of a belief in the authority of the superior. Authority in the sense that the decisions they make are correct and it is desirable to the subordinate to follow them. In other instances it can refer to the coercion of the subordinate through force or fear. I will articulate my opinion on the power relationships in the instance that they do not rely on coercion.

The subordinate in all power relationships (of this type)has a part in the exercising of this power. They have their own will with which they can contemplate as to whether or not they should obey their superior. Therefore power relationships are nearly always based on the respect of the subordinate to the commands of the superior. I think it is rather fatalistic and cynical to articulate that in most power relationships
'They [subordinate] obeyed him [superior] because they were too weak and pathetic to make decisions on their own. '
As Drake said. However, Drake did point out that it is largely down to the will of the subordinate. But what I disagree with is the statement that:
'It only demonstrates the immense amount of power lacking in order to make personal decisions. '
Drake referred to the subordinate in a power relationship is lacking power to make personal decisions. But as he pointed out previously in every power relationship the power resides with the suboridnates willingness to respond to the authority. And in the decision to respond comes the power to give the superior their power to command.

My point, power is a necessary tool with which to organise and orchestrate and system. Furthermore it does not subjugate the 'power' of the subordinate to make decisions.