Authoritarianism and imperialism, concentration of power are the root cause, money is just a symbol of power, under stalinist russia this nefarious corrupting power had another symbol, shape but this society was just as helpless toward this tendency of power, you can see the end point of passive demobilisation and assassination of the few how dare oppose it today in Russia.
I think there needs to be constant pressure of deterritoroalisation, of putting decision and responsibility in the hands of the people, always at the smallest scale that it can be realistically pushed down.
And that’s not the individual if that’s not an individual matter. The level at which decisionnal responsibility is dependant on the context of tgat decision rather than agglomerated bodies of decision when power naturallies tries to concentrate.
It should always be easy for lower echelons of power and locality to repatriate a delegated aspect of their life.
(Then I stuffed this line of thinking into chatgpt to take it further)
I don’t think you’ve actually backed up your thesis, just asserted it. There’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” there’s evidence that systems like Capitalism reward corruption.
Interesting, you wish to make the widely repeated, ancient wisdom that power corrupt into a revolutionary statement against the null hypothesis ?
Very well, would you state your null hypothesis ?
Perhaps something more charitable than the following
“Power is not a problem actually, it’s a matter of having the right group of elites with good and pure hearts and everything will be honky dory forever”
@Cowbee
Please choose your null hypothesis or provide your own
Improved suggestions
🔹 1. Structuralist Null Hypothesis
“Power, in itself, is not inherently corrupting. It is the structure and incentives of a given system (such as capitalism) that determine whether power is exercised corruptly.”
This frames corruption as a product of external conditions, not the mere possession of power.
🔹 2. Neutral Power Hypothesis
“Power is a neutral tool—it amplifies pre-existing tendencies in individuals or institutions, whether for good or ill.”
This positions power as neither good nor bad, just a multiplier.
🔹 3. Contextual Corruption Hypothesis
“Corruption occurs not because power corrupts, but because oversight, accountability, and community control are absent.”
Here, the claim is that power can exist without corruption if institutions around it are healthy.
🔹 4. Power-as-Delegation Hypothesis
“Power is not inherently corrupting when it is transparently delegated, revocable, and tied to responsibilities rather than privileges.”
This implies a democratic or anarchist framework where corruption is a result of opacity and lack of accountability.
🔹 5. Evolutionary Incentives Hypothesis
“Corruption is not caused by power, but by systems that reward short-term gain over long-term cooperation.”
This introduces a behavioral economics or game theory angle, where corruption is a rational response to poorly designed rules.
Concepts being old do not make them real. Few worship the gods of ancient Greece these days. Trying to appeal to the notion of “power,” or some other concept of people occupying administrative, managerial, supervisory, etc roles automatically turning “corrupt,” ie bad, evil, etc on the notion of common sense gets us no closer to the truth.
What matters, and what I find to be far more observable, is societal organization around the basis of class. Your schoolteacher has power, but likely isn’t some evil person. Likewise, managers in factories play vital roles, as do government administrators.
Where the idea of power corrupting comes from, in my view, is a misanalysis of class society and its organizational superstructure. We can move beyond class while retaining administration, organization at a central level, etc. It isn’t about finding “pure” humans, but about altering the base so the superstructure can be altered in turn.
What’s interesting here is that we’ve got at least three different axes being discussed:
Power and Corruption – Whether corruption is an emergent property of power itself (a kind of inevitability), or whether it’s a structural consequence of specific systems like capitalism. Commenter C raises a fair challenge here: maybe it’s not that power always corrupts, but that certain systems disproportionately incentivize and reward corruption. Commenter B replies with a sort of philosophical challenge: “Well, if not that power corrupts, then what’s your null hypothesis?” That’s a good tension.
Systemic Design vs. Human Nature – If authoritarianism and imperialism are recurring outcomes across radically different ideological systems (capitalist, communist, etc.), that suggests there’s something deeper than just the ideology itself at play. Maybe it’s the concentration of decision-making power over large scales, which B is arguing against by advocating for radical subsidiarity—push decisions down to the smallest functional unit, always. But that still requires a theory of how larger-scale coordination happens, especially with externalities in play.
Historical Context and Propaganda – A’s original comment brings in the crucial reminder that many critiques of leftist regimes are made through lenses already deeply distorted by decades of Cold War propaganda and ideological framing. That doesn’t make all critiques invalid, but it does mean any honest analysis needs to start with historical humility. These regimes didn’t arise in a vacuum—they were born into extreme conditions, from colonial trauma to war to internal underdevelopment.
But maybe the most compelling common thread here is that no system seems immune to the gravity of concentrated power. Whether it’s wealth in capitalism, political power in Stalinist regimes, or technocratic control in liberal democracies, the same dynamics often emerge.
So maybe the real question is: What kinds of social, political, and economic designs actively resist centralization? And is there a way to build those that also remain resilient and cohesive, rather than fragile and fragmented?
Because yes—pulling out the dollar-rooted swastika-flower is powerful imagery. But the hard part is asking: What do we plant in its place?
I think the concept of positive/negative externalities could serve as a north star in deciding the all important question of the appropriate scalevat which a discussion is taken.
While I think we shoild try to empower and give autonomy to the local they always are within a larger community of externalities. The local should also no to inform and defer to a higher scale when their decision is “larger then them”.
The local is not thought as isolated or unaccountable, but it is given preference as a scale. We want the local to choose how to live in harmony with the whole and their neighbours.
All this is well but it would be really easy to fall back into the grooves of individualist isolationnist and collectivist absolutist.
I don’t think the ideal exist at the middle of these extremes but rather toward tge lower scale without bottoming out
Authoritarianism and imperialism, concentration of power are the root cause, money is just a symbol of power, under stalinist russia this nefarious corrupting power had another symbol, shape but this society was just as helpless toward this tendency of power, you can see the end point of passive demobilisation and assassination of the few how dare oppose it today in Russia.
I think there needs to be constant pressure of deterritoroalisation, of putting decision and responsibility in the hands of the people, always at the smallest scale that it can be realistically pushed down.
And that’s not the individual if that’s not an individual matter. The level at which decisionnal responsibility is dependant on the context of tgat decision rather than agglomerated bodies of decision when power naturallies tries to concentrate.
It should always be easy for lower echelons of power and locality to repatriate a delegated aspect of their life.
(Then I stuffed this line of thinking into chatgpt to take it further)
https://chatgpt.com/share/6803f4ba-eebc-8005-919f-3b896dce2e0f
I don’t think you’ve actually backed up your thesis, just asserted it. There’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” there’s evidence that systems like Capitalism reward corruption.
Interesting, you wish to make the widely repeated, ancient wisdom that power corrupt into a revolutionary statement against the null hypothesis ?
Very well, would you state your null hypothesis ?
Perhaps something more charitable than the following
“Power is not a problem actually, it’s a matter of having the right group of elites with good and pure hearts and everything will be honky dory forever”
@Cowbee
Please choose your null hypothesis or provide your own
Improved suggestions
🔹 1. Structuralist Null Hypothesis
“Power, in itself, is not inherently corrupting. It is the structure and incentives of a given system (such as capitalism) that determine whether power is exercised corruptly.”
This frames corruption as a product of external conditions, not the mere possession of power.
🔹 2. Neutral Power Hypothesis
“Power is a neutral tool—it amplifies pre-existing tendencies in individuals or institutions, whether for good or ill.”
This positions power as neither good nor bad, just a multiplier.
🔹 3. Contextual Corruption Hypothesis
“Corruption occurs not because power corrupts, but because oversight, accountability, and community control are absent.”
Here, the claim is that power can exist without corruption if institutions around it are healthy.
🔹 4. Power-as-Delegation Hypothesis
“Power is not inherently corrupting when it is transparently delegated, revocable, and tied to responsibilities rather than privileges.”
This implies a democratic or anarchist framework where corruption is a result of opacity and lack of accountability.
🔹 5. Evolutionary Incentives Hypothesis
“Corruption is not caused by power, but by systems that reward short-term gain over long-term cooperation.”
This introduces a behavioral economics or game theory angle, where corruption is a rational response to poorly designed rules.
Concepts being old do not make them real. Few worship the gods of ancient Greece these days. Trying to appeal to the notion of “power,” or some other concept of people occupying administrative, managerial, supervisory, etc roles automatically turning “corrupt,” ie bad, evil, etc on the notion of common sense gets us no closer to the truth.
What matters, and what I find to be far more observable, is societal organization around the basis of class. Your schoolteacher has power, but likely isn’t some evil person. Likewise, managers in factories play vital roles, as do government administrators.
Where the idea of power corrupting comes from, in my view, is a misanalysis of class society and its organizational superstructure. We can move beyond class while retaining administration, organization at a central level, etc. It isn’t about finding “pure” humans, but about altering the base so the superstructure can be altered in turn.
Yes,
But it happens continuously, it is being revealed continuously.
Wherever your find unchecked concentrations of power, at every scale, from schoolyard bully to the presidency.
We cannot afford institution once again to abdicate our lives to another greedy black hole of power to digest us for another half-century
ENOUGH already
What’s interesting here is that we’ve got at least three different axes being discussed:
Power and Corruption – Whether corruption is an emergent property of power itself (a kind of inevitability), or whether it’s a structural consequence of specific systems like capitalism. Commenter C raises a fair challenge here: maybe it’s not that power always corrupts, but that certain systems disproportionately incentivize and reward corruption. Commenter B replies with a sort of philosophical challenge: “Well, if not that power corrupts, then what’s your null hypothesis?” That’s a good tension.
Systemic Design vs. Human Nature – If authoritarianism and imperialism are recurring outcomes across radically different ideological systems (capitalist, communist, etc.), that suggests there’s something deeper than just the ideology itself at play. Maybe it’s the concentration of decision-making power over large scales, which B is arguing against by advocating for radical subsidiarity—push decisions down to the smallest functional unit, always. But that still requires a theory of how larger-scale coordination happens, especially with externalities in play.
Historical Context and Propaganda – A’s original comment brings in the crucial reminder that many critiques of leftist regimes are made through lenses already deeply distorted by decades of Cold War propaganda and ideological framing. That doesn’t make all critiques invalid, but it does mean any honest analysis needs to start with historical humility. These regimes didn’t arise in a vacuum—they were born into extreme conditions, from colonial trauma to war to internal underdevelopment.
But maybe the most compelling common thread here is that no system seems immune to the gravity of concentrated power. Whether it’s wealth in capitalism, political power in Stalinist regimes, or technocratic control in liberal democracies, the same dynamics often emerge.
So maybe the real question is: What kinds of social, political, and economic designs actively resist centralization? And is there a way to build those that also remain resilient and cohesive, rather than fragile and fragmented?
Because yes—pulling out the dollar-rooted swastika-flower is powerful imagery. But the hard part is asking: What do we plant in its place?
https://chatgpt.com/share/6806d381-678c-8005-854f-77741e1ec651
I think the concept of positive/negative externalities could serve as a north star in deciding the all important question of the appropriate scalevat which a discussion is taken.
While I think we shoild try to empower and give autonomy to the local they always are within a larger community of externalities. The local should also no to inform and defer to a higher scale when their decision is “larger then them”.
The local is not thought as isolated or unaccountable, but it is given preference as a scale. We want the local to choose how to live in harmony with the whole and their neighbours.
All this is well but it would be really easy to fall back into the grooves of individualist isolationnist and collectivist absolutist.
I don’t think the ideal exist at the middle of these extremes but rather toward tge lower scale without bottoming out