Comment on Why are so many leaders in tech evil?
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoIt is the opposite. In capitalism, there is at least a chance a good person has power because of how power is distributed. There are multiple examples in the main post.
In communism, the way power is distributed ensures corrupt people raise to the top. See an amazing video “rule for rulers” by CGP gray for a simplified explanation how that corruption works.
In communism, the way power is distributed ensures corrupt people raise to the top
In communism, power is typically distributed somewhat democratically; eg every level above the lowest must be democratically elected by the previous level. Capitalism doesn’t even require that.
You can’t look at capitalist government and assume that government under communism behaves the same way.
Please name which country in Europe has a government thats hasn’t been bought and paid off.
Of course, no one can. Unfortunately, that’s because capitalism is incompatible with actual democracy. Theres isn’t a country in the world whos democratic process and systems of governance hasn’t been utterly corrupted by capitalism and all that it brings with it.
If there’s a top that someone could rise to, it isn’t communism.
Netherlands? Switzerland? Norway?
Like sure, there always is some corruption but relatively insignificant amount.
Nope, come on man are you kidding me (?) and disagree again.
I agree that maybe you can’t but that doesn’t make it true or not. The last Conservative government of great Britain showed themselves to be utterly corrupted by greed and capitalism. They didn’t even have to pretend not to rip the entire country off during the covid pandemic.
Even then, its not “more” or less than the US. My point is just that capitalism corrupts all governments, to one extent or another, because its incompatible with democracy.
If there is a top, in terms of money or having things etc., then it isn’t communism.
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
CGP Grey refers to dictatorships in that video, not communism specifically. Marx predicted a revolution of labor that would get rid of scarcity and was never realized by the Soviet system. If you read a bit about it you’ll see that the so-called marxists never reached communism, as they kept pumping resources into the government, police and bureaucracy.
Communism. A utopian society without classes, divisions of wealth, exploitation or suffering. Members would provide what they could and receive what they need. The instruments of state, like government bureaucracies, police and military, would become unnecessary and would “wither away”.
Rules for rulers is explicitly about human behavior in heirarchy, not specifically anti communist.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/marxism/
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
CGP gray very specifically refers to democracies as well and explains how things like farm subsidies are used to buy votes. Maybe re-watch the video.
And yes, CGP gray also indirectly explains why Marxists kept pumping resources into the government, police and bureaucracy. It is inevitable in a system where you concentrate power in a limited group of people.
That is why distributing power between large number of independent capitalists and voters is the system that so far worked best so far, although still very far from perfect.
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The book he references in that video does not make the argument you are making and by my interpretation neither does he.
I’ve edited my previous comment with more context and sources.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sorry if it is unclear, I am saying CGB Gray explains how corruption happens in leadership structures.
The opinion that this is why capitalism can work better than communism is entirely my own logical conclusion. I am not trying to claim CGP Gray said so.
Again sorry for the confusion.