this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
42 points (62.1% liked)
Memes
54470 readers
1159 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Administration is not a class in and of itself, either capitalists control the state or the working classes control the state. Power isn't some supernatural corruptive force, either. Further, socialist countries are the only genuinely democratic countries, replacing leadership isn't a sign of democracy, but instability and dissatisfaction with government. I don't think you actually know what we communists are talking about, and you're trapped in idealist and metaphysical thinking.
I'll admit I am thinking in idealistic terms, but that is the point. I believe in punching through your targets, and not just settle for the "best of a job lot". I hope for a society that can move beyond the types of government we've seen so far.
Power always corrupts. Some individuals are able to avoid this but organised groups never can. Maybe some groups are more altruistic in their goals, initially at least, but the longer they exist the more self preservationist they become. This is basic human behaviour.
I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing. If a society (communist or not) is not satisfied with the performance of its leaders they should be replaced. The power to replace leaders must be in the hands of the people, not as an exception but as routine. However, I don't know of a communist government that allows this, unless I've misunderstood?
I don't mean idealist as in having ideals, I mean it as you using supernatural causes for explanation. Power is not a supernatural corrupting force. Of course, everyone seeks to act in their own interest, but organization does not turn people evil.
The ability to replace individual leaders is a good thing, and is a common factor in socialist countries. Having high turnover in leadership is a bad thing, as it means dissatisfaction and instability.
You are right, power is not a super natural force. However, the psychological impact of power is very real and well understood. The evidence of our own experiences should be enough to tell you this. Also, there are countless psychology experiments demonstrating the corrupting influence of power, which often boils down self-preservation through a continued hold on power. People will make up any old bullshit to justify why they should in power.
The degree of corruption varies between individuals and the level of responsibility they have, but once you bring people into groups it becomes unavoidable. Public transparency and oversight is about the only thing that can constrain it.
You're treating it like a supernatural force, though, and further socialist countries do have public transparency and oversight, so you're drawing a false comparison. People's lived existence determines their thought, there isn't an inherent aspect of having managerial duties that turns people evil or "corrupt."
I'll admit I don't know enough about transparency in communist societies, but you need to read up on the experiments done on human behaviour in power structures. It is fascinating and scary.
I have done so already. There is no such thing as a supernatural corrupting force, as I already stated. Instead, people's lived existence, how they live, work, produce, revieve, etc. is what shapes their thoughts and thinking. How else can you explain that some people seem "immune" to this corrupting force you speak of? You leap to supernatural explanation, though unintentional, rather than engaging with a materialist explanation.
I do recommend you research socialist systems run by communist parties. They do not operate the way you have assumed.
You've never read a single peer reviewed paper on the subject.
Not about to get into a pantomime back and forth here, but to satisfy your curiosity.Psychology is a personal area of study. I often read the BPS and APA, though my primary interest is Developmental psychology so I prefer the BJP most months. If I had more patience for statistics I'd have made a career of it.
Bullshit there are, cite your sources or shut up
There are plenty of published articles dealing with specific experiments, but I'm going to hold you to the same standard you expect of me. Go do your own research, it is really not that hard. You'll discover that Powerful groups trend towards corruption (in the long term), and if you dig into the smaller scale social experiments that have been repeated around the world, you'll discover why. It is very interesting stuff, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Source: idk, people say it as a cliche a lot so it must be true!
Don't be childish. You know full well that was not the intent or focus or my point. Focus on the human nature stuff and read about the psychology of control and self preservation of groups.
Human nature doesn't exist outside of the context of its existence, the social life of humanity. Under different material conditions, "human nature" is wildly different. An appeal to a higher, supernatural "human nature" is therefore not a materialist explanation.