Power, its will to corrupt.

[Rocker219]

Gosh do I hate power, im even to afraid to take it... I think thats why ive stayed just an employee for so long. How would one overcome this? Im still working on it, but almost every good person ive seen come into power, its changed them. I believe in society, not absolute power, how do you get that though?

[Bright Banana Beard]

You can use power for good or for evil. It is that simple. You should only fear the fear itself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's lack of power that corrupts.

[Module]

I don't necessarily think that power 'corrupts'. It doesn't change anyone - people are just in a different perspective when they have that power. Nobody likes having power exerted over them because they think they know best. It's the same thing when they have the opportunity to exert power over other people. It would be more of a matter of principle and... self education... :confused: to act differently.

[Led Zeppelin]

Power doesn't always corrupt; see Robespierre.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why do you lot accept what Lord Acton said?

As Marx noted, it's lack of power (alienation) that corrupts.

[Maybe-not]

You need love in order to sustain the weight. I'd never vote for a single head-of-state. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You should post that sort of stuff in 'chit chat'.

[Module]

What do you mean by 'accept'? He said power corrupts and has yet to be agreed with on this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I, of course, meant 'accept' in the sense of 'start from...'.

[Oneironaut]

I do feel that power has the great tendency to corrupt individuals. This has occurred time and time again through history. Another interesting example is to study the prison scenario where individuals were either placed as guards and the rest as prisoners. It must be mentioned that these individuals never previously displayed domineering attitudes and the "guards" actions are quite shocking. However, I think as long as a political leader fears his/hers constituents and his/hers constituents do not fear him/her then the chances of the leader becoming corrupt are greatly reduced. I would vote for a head of state as long as they know that if their actions do not reflect the will of the majority then they would be overthrown.

[Holden Caulfield]

i think that it can degenerate systems as interal devience or struggles make movements less of what they started off being and more geared towards the persuit of power, i think that after so many decades of (hypothetical) Trotskyism even our system will degenerate as those who were not alive during the revolution come to 'power' and so it will be time for other groups (hopefully a true Trotskyist one) to assume power or to dissolve the state

[Module]

I, of course, meant 'accept' in the sense of 'start from...'.
Ah, well that's because it was a quote s/he directly referred to. :)
In reply to what Marx said, well, I'd have to agree with that.
I think how people act, in the sense of 'corruption' (that's quite a broad term, anyway, isn't it...) depends on their relationship to power and authority. Those who feel 'alienated' from the structure of their society obviously wouldn't consider it something to more consciously interact with.
I suppose that would also apply to those with power - if you fail to include yourself in the actions you take that effect others, if you take actions thinking of yourself as separate from those who you have 'power' over then I think that's what 'corrupts',
But then I'm just repeating.

[careyprice31]

Gosh do I hate power, im even to afraid to take it... I think thats why ive stayed just an employee for so long. How would one overcome this? Im still working on it, but almost every good person ive seen come into power, its changed them. I believe in society, not absolute power, how do you get that though?

Power and the delegation of great responsibilities to one or more people, can indeed change them for the worse. Not just for Spider Man does great power come with great responsibility. The trouble is, some people do get carried away with it, and they can then exploit the authority they've been given to do great harm.

Trouble is, how do we fix that. This is what Rocker wants to know.

Rosa is indeed correct though, a lack of authority causes harm as well.

what will we do if a person or persons start to abuse the powers given to them.

[Ismail]

Power doesn't corrupt by itself. Isolation and, as Marx said, alienation corrupts. Plus in capitalist nations the whole system is essentially built on corruption since the accumulation of capital is natural and the more money equals a better life.

[flyingpants]

You can use power for good or for evil. It is that simple. You should only fear the fear itself.

Some anarchist.

[Volderbeek]

Gosh do I hate power, im even to afraid to take it... I think thats why ive stayed just an employee for so long. How would one overcome this? Im still working on it, but almost every good person ive seen come into power, its changed them. I believe in society, not absolute power, how do you get that though?

The problem isn't power itself, but the will to power (the essence of fascism). Therefore, we should put power in abstractions with no such will. An example is the constitutions that every nation with any semblance of democracy has.

[Volderbeek]

Power doesn't corrupt by itself. Isolation and, as Marx said, alienation corrupts.

But it's the proletariat that's alienated. So does that mean that the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually the dictatorship of the corrupt. The whole point of Marxist revolution is to install corrupt dictators? But then again, I suppose that does match the history of such revolutions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/poem-t11734/index.html

''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''

[Kropotesta]

Some anarchist.
haha I thought that.
I agree with Lord Acton- "Power tend to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

[Luís Henrique]

haha I thought that.
I agree with Lord Acton- "Power tend to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
But Lord Acton was a powerful man, wasn't he? So he was corrupt, according to himself... and why should we trust a corrupt man?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, why should we trust any ruling class figure?

[Kropotesta]

why should we trust anyone at all?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social life would be impossible without it.

[Hit The North]

Indeed, why should we trust any ruling class figure?

And yet in another thread you are advocating that Marxists hold meetings with the sons and daughters of the ruling class.

Make your mind up. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


And yet in another thread you are advocating that Marxists hold meetings with the sons and daughters of the ruling class.


I did not advocate it; I merely passed a comment about a comrade who did this, and about your inconsistent attitude to these off-spring.

But, even if you were right, I did say in that thread that we should not trust such comrades unless they were under the democratic control of workers.

You really must work on that poor memory/comprehension of yours.

[Hit The North]

I did not advocate it; I merely passed a comment about a comrade who did this, and about your inconsistent attitude to these off-spring.

I don't have an inconsistent attitude to these off-spring. I would, without exception, round them up and force them to go to state schools.


But, even if you were right, I did say in that thread that we should not trust such comrades unless they were under the democratic control of workers.

So the only value in enlisting these poor dears to the workers movement is that we could use them to practice our policing and surveillance skills?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



I don't have an inconsistent attitude to these off-spring. I would, without exception, round them up and force them to go to state schools.


You would not mtalk to them, which means that you would not have talked to Alex callinicos until he renounced his past -- and yet he would not have decided to do tnat if no one would have talked to him.

Plus, yuo'd not have talked top one of Engels's off-spring.

Finally, I fail to see what forcing them into the state sector has to do with this.



So the only value in enlisting these poor dears to the workers movement is that we could use them to practice our policing and surveillance skills?


Not at all; such comrades bring with them into the workers movement mytical, ruling-class ideas and forms-of-thought -- of the sort that have nuked your brain cells -- and thus need the materialist good sense of workers to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Too late for you, I'm afraid...

[Hit The North]

Not at all; such comrades bring with them into the workers movement mytical, ruling-class ideas and forms-of-thought And you see a value in that, do you? I doubt that you do. Therefore the question remains: what is the value of trying to recruit members of the ruling class to the workers movement?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


And you see a value in that, do you? I doubt that you do. Therefore the question remains: what is the value of trying to recruit members of the ruling class to the workers movement?

Tell that to Alex Callinicos and Paul Foot (or Dietzgen and Engels).

Even Marx noted that sections of the bourgeoisie can go over to the workers.

The problem is that they bring odd ideas with them -- ones, indeed, that you have swallowed.

[Hit The North]

Tell that to Alex Callinicos and Paul Foot (or Dietzgen and Engels).Tell them what? I'm asking you a question:

What is the point of putting energy into recruiting bourgeois individuals if, as you claim, "such comrades bring with them into the workers movement mytical, ruling-class ideas and forms-of-thought"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Tell them what? I'm asking you a question:



And, I reckon you should direct that at them.



What is the point of putting energy into recruiting bourgeois individuals if, as you claim, "such comrades bring with them into the workers movement mytical, ruling-class ideas and forms-of-thought"?


Once more, I am not advocating this, merely objecting to your inconsitent stance on this issue.

Such characters have, and always will be attracted to the revolutionary movement, for all kinds of reasons. You can sermonise about it, deprecate it, but you won't be able to stop it.

Indeed, it has already happened; bourgeois characters (for example Engels and Dietzgen), and petty-bourgeois individuals (e.g. Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Lukacs, Luxembourg, Plekhanov, Cliff, Grant, Pablo,...) have not only entered the movement, they have risen to the 'top', and have thus controlled our core theory -- dialectics.

It is these ideas that need working class control.

But, we needn't look to you for any help; your brain has already been colonised...

[Hit The North]

You are the one being inconsistent. On the one hand you commend Comrade Woods sermonizing in the very nest of the young bourgeoisie, Eton - the most elitist school in the world. But then you argue that these bourgeois converts pose a real danger to the movement.

I don't argue that.

My position is that, yes, members of the bourgeoisie may be drawn to the workers movement and, like the rest of us, they have to prove their commitment in practice. I have no problem with that. I just question the tactic of us going to them and holding meetings in elitist, patriarchal institutions like Eton.

But really I have a small objection to it: that's two hours comrade Woods could have spent talking to the sons and daughters of the working class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


You are the one being inconsistent. On the one hand you commend Comrade Woods sermonizing in the very nest of the young bourgeoisie, Eton - the most elitist school in the world. But then you argue that these bourgeois converts pose a real danger to the movement.

On the contrary, I do not advocate preaching to the sons and daughters of the bourgeoisis, but if anyone does, I would not attack them for it.

You would, even though someone must have spoken to Alex Callinicos and Paul Foot. If you had been around in the 1960s and 70s, you would not only have shunned them, but given those who did speak to them a hard time.


But then you argue that these bourgeois converts pose a real danger to the movement.

I don't argue that.


If so, then why did you criticise Alan Woods -- if such elements are no danger what's the problem?

Of course, like me, even Lenin was suspicious of such comrades (in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back), and I merely argue for their ideas to be controlled by workers. [In fact, my argument is more complex than this, but since your attention span is not too good, I will not go into that here.]


My position is that, yes, members of the bourgeoisie may be drawn to the workers movement and, like the rest of us, they have to prove their commitment in practice. I have no problem with that. I just question the tactic of us going to them and holding meetings in elitist, patriarchal institutions like Eton.


But, if someone did, and they recruited another Alex, or another Paul Foot, what then?



But really I have a small objection to it: that's two hours comrade Woods could have spent talking to the sons and daughters of the working class.



Sure, I agree that that would be a better use of time in normal circumstances, but the working class is quiescent at present; so even you will see we have to try other things.

After all, if we were now back in the 1970s --, say, 1972/3 --, do you think we'd be bothering with Respect?