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.