How is class an “interesting theory?” Class analysis is the basis of historical materialism, which is agreed upon by modern historiography to be one of the most effective ways of analyzing history. It’s fundamentally correct, the idea that capitalists don’t seek their own interest as capitalists is just basic logic.
Further, class analysis is critical for communist organization, as identifying which classes are revolutionary and which ones are not informs how you organize and what is to be done once taking power and establishing socialism.
That’s not what I said. I said that the fact that a new mode of production will change the way the practice of power change the the biological functioning of the brain is an interesting theory. Of course classes exist.
“Power” does not change the biological functioning of the brain. You are confusing class interest for “power” as a supernatural corruptive force. The mode of production changes what classes exist, and which ones are in power, which changes the way we live and think.
You can repeat “supernatural” as much as you want, I’m still speaking about scientific facts. Different experiences shape the functioning of the brain differently, there’s nothing magical with that.
The way we live influences how we think and how we act. This is basic materialism. However, “power” is not the moving factor, class is. This is why administration has changed dramatically based on modes of production and distribution. Socialist countries simply do not face the same scale of problems with corruption as capitalist countries. This isn’t because socialism is more resistant to corruptive forces like “power,” but instead because the class relations are different.
I call the idea that “power corrupts” supernatural thinking because it erases the actual materialist cause, and injects a vague and nebulous concept of an evil corruptive force. Administration is not the enemy, class is.
It isn’t merely wishful thinking, it’s based on actual analysis of socialist countries. Administration is a necessity for large scale production, without which we cannot abolish class, unless you wish to turn to early communalism.
Socialist countries simply do not face the same scale of problems with corruption as capitalist countries.
Corruption is always a problem, but “power” is not a corruptive force. This is why we must return to class analysis, and how this impacts people.
I read the study you linked, not only was it largely based on lab studies and not the real world, it also entirely erased class from the experiments. Much of what it contributed to “power” is in actual fact a result of differences in class, and erasing this essential function from how class dynamics shape differences in individual authority fundamentally paints a massive hole in the experiment and conclusions.
How is class an “interesting theory?” Class analysis is the basis of historical materialism, which is agreed upon by modern historiography to be one of the most effective ways of analyzing history. It’s fundamentally correct, the idea that capitalists don’t seek their own interest as capitalists is just basic logic.
Further, class analysis is critical for communist organization, as identifying which classes are revolutionary and which ones are not informs how you organize and what is to be done once taking power and establishing socialism.
That’s not what I said. I said that the fact that a new mode of production will change the way the practice of power change the the biological functioning of the brain is an interesting theory. Of course classes exist.
“Power” does not change the biological functioning of the brain. You are confusing class interest for “power” as a supernatural corruptive force. The mode of production changes what classes exist, and which ones are in power, which changes the way we live and think.
You can repeat “supernatural” as much as you want, I’m still speaking about scientific facts. Different experiences shape the functioning of the brain differently, there’s nothing magical with that.
The way we live influences how we think and how we act. This is basic materialism. However, “power” is not the moving factor, class is. This is why administration has changed dramatically based on modes of production and distribution. Socialist countries simply do not face the same scale of problems with corruption as capitalist countries. This isn’t because socialism is more resistant to corruptive forces like “power,” but instead because the class relations are different.
I call the idea that “power corrupts” supernatural thinking because it erases the actual materialist cause, and injects a vague and nebulous concept of an evil corruptive force. Administration is not the enemy, class is.
Wishful thinking, again.
Both are.
It isn’t merely wishful thinking, it’s based on actual analysis of socialist countries. Administration is a necessity for large scale production, without which we cannot abolish class, unless you wish to turn to early communalism.
It’s totally wishful thinking. Even Xi Jinping recognized that corruption was an “existential threat” for China. Or isn’t China socialist?
Corruption is always a problem, but “power” is not a corruptive force. This is why we must return to class analysis, and how this impacts people.
I read the study you linked, not only was it largely based on lab studies and not the real world, it also entirely erased class from the experiments. Much of what it contributed to “power” is in actual fact a result of differences in class, and erasing this essential function from how class dynamics shape differences in individual authority fundamentally paints a massive hole in the experiment and conclusions.