A Brief Theory on Why Socialists/Leftists Seem to be Prone to Corruption. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14958977
After the snafus wherein the Democrats were tied to Hillary and lost, and the Brazilian leftists were tied to a guy who was literally running for President from his prison cell after being convicted of corruption and lost to a guy who has high praise for Pinochet, I was wondering a bit why leftists and socialists seem to be so vulnerable to corruption, which is what I view as an explanation re: their inability to dethrone these kinds of candidates.

It's generally clear that leftists dislike non-cooperatively owned businesses, business managers, landlords etc. It's also clear that doing those things effectively requires a different skillset than what the laborers may possess. So then it hit me. Whenever a place starts attempting this socialism thing, the businesses and operations that run more successfully are only pretending to be cooperatively owned. In reality, someone is acting as a manager and an elite behind the scenes. Due to the need for a pretense of socialism, his power is actually due to under the table dealings and is not due as much to overt and official status. It should be easy to extrapolate how this leads to strongmen and corruption.
#14959010
Yeah, it looks like you answered your own question there -- you're describing the objective inability for socialist-collectivist directions to reconcile with the existing terrain of balkanized / hyper-fragmented private-property interests. Private property interests *require* a private power hierarchy of some sort, based on ownership, so that decision-making can happen unambiguously, especially considering the larger context of *competition* with other, similar business-minded entities.

Socialism, on the other hand, requires at least a *proto*-egalitarianism among all participants involved, particularly the workers (within a larger pool of 'stakeholders', while capitalist relations still exist). Businesses and entire *countries* would operate more-compatibly within the *existing* order, as decisive conventional *hierarchies* inside the overall nation-state, a configuration which is no good for *socialism*-directed efforts by the working class, since such efforts have to be on an egalitarian *mass* basis -- *non*-hierarchically, mostly. (Consider the current Honduran, El Salvadoran, and Guatemalan refugees, by the thousands, for an example of mass working-class / humane common interests.)
#14959014
ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, it looks like you answered your own question there -- you're describing the objective inability for socialist-collectivist directions to reconcile with the existing terrain of balkanized / hyper-fragmented private-property interests. Private property interests *require* a private power hierarchy of some sort, based on ownership, so that decision-making can happen unambiguously, especially considering the larger context of *competition* with other, similar business-minded entities.

Socialism, on the other hand, requires at least a *proto*-egalitarianism among all participants involved, particularly the workers (within a larger pool of 'stakeholders', while capitalist relations still exist). Businesses and entire *countries* would operate more-compatibly within the *existing* order, as decisive conventional *hierarchies* inside the overall nation-state, a configuration which is no good for *socialism*-directed efforts by the working class, since such efforts have to be on an egalitarian *mass* basis -- *non*-hierarchically, mostly. (Consider the current Honduran, El Salvadoran, and Guatemalan refugees, by the thousands, for an example of mass working-class / humane common interests.)

OK weird formatting, welcome to the forum. You're basically suggesting that an entire country or, since we're in a global economy, the entire world has to be socialist before socialism can work?
#14959022
Hong Wu wrote:OK weird formatting, welcome to the forum.


FYI @ckaihatsu, you need to have a black and white avatar per the rules. Just thought someone should let you know.

Otherwise, welcome to the forum.

Hong Wu wrote:You're basically suggesting that an entire country or, since we're in a global economy, the entire world has to be socialist before socialism can work?


This is not an unheard of view, but it does seem somewhat at odds with many of the board's Stalinists if I read them correctly.

This was sort of Rei's view, but she argued that global socialism comes only after global democracy and capitalism has completely saturated everything first as she feels that international socialism is the natural evolutionary result of a technocratic global market economy (hence, as a dialectical materialist, she is an accelerationist par excellence).

It seems to me that Ckaihatsu is a more of a theoretical idealist as far his variety of international socialism. Metal masturbation without due consideration of rights, ethics, or even practical possibility.
#14959061
Hong Wu wrote:After the snafus wherein the Democrats were tied to Hillary and lost, and the Brazilian leftists were tied to a guy who was literally running for President from his prison cell after being convicted of corruption and lost to a guy who has high praise for Pinochet, I was wondering a bit why leftists and socialists seem to be so vulnerable to corruption, which is what I view as an explanation re: their inability to dethrone these kinds of candidates.

It's generally clear that leftists dislike non-cooperatively owned businesses, business managers, landlords etc. It's also clear that doing those things effectively requires a different skillset than what the laborers may possess. So then it hit me. Whenever a place starts attempting this socialism thing, the businesses and operations that run more successfully are only pretending to be cooperatively owned. In reality, someone is acting as a manager and an elite behind the scenes. Due to the need for a pretense of socialism, his power is actually due to under the table dealings and is not due as much to overt and official status. It should be easy to extrapolate how this leads to strongmen and corruption.


Are there any verifiable claims here?

It just seems like you are writing whatever comes into your head and that you have not bothered to check to see if it is true.
#14959090
Hong Wu wrote:
OK weird formatting, welcome to the forum. You're basically suggesting that an entire country or, since we're in a global economy, the entire world has to be socialist before socialism can work?



Yeah, my writing style is to write in a way that sounds like speaking -- hope it's not too packed-together. I also try to keep things concise.

Correct -- the capitalist mode of production is mutually exclusive to a potential *socialist* mode of production since each material basis (exchange values vs. use values, respectively) are incompatible.

People commonly cite this-or-that *country* to try to get an 'example' of socialism, but such efforts are ill-founded since, yes, socialism *would* have to be worldwide, by definition. (Why should any area of the world have to continue to be mired in capitalist labor exploitation while other areas *transcend* it -- ?) Stalin did a great disservice to socialism by forcing his abomination of 'socialism-in-one-country', which people now think is how socialism *is*, when in fact it's better-termed as 'Stalinism':


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Victoribus Spolia wrote:
FYI @ckaihatsu, you need to have a black and white avatar per the rules. Just thought someone should let you know.

Otherwise, welcome to the forum.



Thanks -- I just fixed my avatar.


Victoribus Spolia wrote:
This is not an unheard of view, but it does seem somewhat at odds with many of the board's Stalinists if I read them correctly.



Well, I *agree* with the Stalinist formulation / strategy of 'national liberation' (as for Syria), but I'm not a Stalinist because they tend to get wrapped-up in the bourgeois nation-state, and make deals with the existing bourgeois power structure as a logical result, as in Nepal or China.


Victoribus Spolia wrote:
This was sort of Rei's view, but she argued that global socialism comes only after global democracy and capitalism has completely saturated everything first as she feels that international socialism is the natural evolutionary result of a technocratic global market economy (hence, as a dialectical materialist, she is an accelerationist par excellence).



This, unfortunately, is a woefully outdated kind of politics -- it was valid 101 years ago, when many countries, like Russia, still had backward material development (minimal industry), but today Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' is more applicable, and apt:


Trotsky put forward his conception of "permanent revolution" as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. Trotsky's theory also argues, first, that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat. Second, that the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic, and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution



---


Victoribus Spolia wrote:
It seems to me that Ckaihatsu is a more of a theoretical idealist as far his variety of international socialism. Metal masturbation without due consideration of rights, ethics, or even practical possibility.



Hmmmm, it's not good to be so dismissive of *theory* -- there's a lot that can go *wrong* in even the best-intentioned attempts at socialism, as we can see from 20th-Century history (Mao's 'Cultural Revolution' springs to mind).

Your concern is more with the 'superstructure', while the *mode of production* (socially-necessary social production), or 'base', is really what's at-stake. In other words, the aspects of 'rights', 'ethics', and even practical social possibility, are all contingent / dependent on how a society disposes of its surplus labor value -- that which exceeds the material reproduction of the working-class, going forward in time. (I'll add that 'rights' and 'ethics' are of the past age of *bourgeois* revolutions in the 18th century, since they superseded feudalism's 'divine right of kings'. But now that the world has the capacity for global-scale humane production on *industrial* implements, *that's* what concerns a socialist-minded politics.)


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image
#14959111
You do make pretty pictures, i'll give you that.

I am your friendly neighborhood Anarcho-Capitalist, Trinitarian Phenomenal Idealist (There is no material (mind-independent) reality), Augustinian Paleo-Catholic (Traditionalist Christian Monergist), Theonomist (Think, Old Testament Law Being Enforced Universally), and Patriarchal Fecundist (Birth control is evil, demographics are destiny, men should rule everything etc.)

That summary should clue you into my views and why we would not be ideological allies (but enemies in point of fact).

This does not mean we cannot get along on a personal level.

I for one will be cool with anyone who isn't a dick.

I am sure we will cross swords in the future around here, but for now I am just going to say this:

Welcome and hope all goes well for you here and you enjoy your time.

Here is my official advice to you going forward (based on what i've seen so regarding your posting):

1. Engage with other ideaologies, not just socialism and your "ideas" regarding socialism. Rather, engage in actively critiquing other ideologies outside of your school of thought.

2. I can see you have been active in other "socialist forums" and its clear that you use graphics etc., to promote your own ideas within that sphere. Try not to use this forum as just another medium to promote your latest ideas within a very narrow realm of political theory. No one here seems to like people who are only here to self-promote their latest thought-experiment as part of a broader online campaign to fame or awareness. This will bring me to my next point....

3. Be part of the community, post on the "The Longest Thread Ever," talk about your personal life, engage in discussion about movies, music, etc, your favorite foods, etc., in the Goriky Park Sub-Forum. Be a normal person.

4. Don't be a dick, follow forum-rules, and respect the moderation team.

If you follow #1-4 above, you'll do alright.

Godspeed,

-VS
#14959427
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
You do make pretty pictures, i'll give you that.

I am your friendly neighborhood Anarcho-Capitalist, Trinitarian Phenomenal Idealist (There is no material (mind-independent) reality), Augustinian Paleo-Catholic (Traditionalist Christian Monergist), Theonomist (Think, Old Testament Law Being Enforced Universally), and Patriarchal Fecundist (Birth control is evil, demographics are destiny, men should rule everything etc.)

That summary should clue you into my views and why we would not be ideological allies (but enemies in point of fact).

This does not mean we cannot get along on a personal level.

I for one will be cool with anyone who isn't a dick.

I am sure we will cross swords in the future around here, but for now I am just going to say this:

Welcome and hope all goes well for you here and you enjoy your time.

Here is my official advice to you going forward (based on what i've seen so regarding your posting):

1. Engage with other ideaologies, not just socialism and your "ideas" regarding socialism. Rather, engage in actively critiquing other ideologies outside of your school of thought.

2. I can see you have been active in other "socialist forums" and its clear that you use graphics etc., to promote your own ideas within that sphere. Try not to use this forum as just another medium to promote your latest ideas within a very narrow realm of political theory. No one here seems to like people who are only here to self-promote their latest thought-experiment as part of a broader online campaign to fame or awareness. This will bring me to my next point....

3. Be part of the community, post on the "The Longest Thread Ever," talk about your personal life, engage in discussion about movies, music, etc, your favorite foods, etc., in the Goriky Park Sub-Forum. Be a normal person.

4. Don't be a dick, follow forum-rules, and respect the moderation team.

If you follow #1-4 above, you'll do alright.

Godspeed,

-VS



Well, let me put it *this* way -- I'm here for the politics, and I'm not a lifestylist.

Sure, I can follow forum rules, as already demonstrated, and I can respect the moderation team. Your "official" advice seems to encourage more of a *group*-based identity, based on taking participants as 'personalities'. I'm not here to be the political analogue of a celebrity, so I'm not going to be investing in my 'personality' here, but rather dealing with the political topics of the day, and political principles, etc., which is so sorely lacking on the Internet in general, despite the *medium* for such being almost ideal -- the discussion-board format.
#14959433
All ‘correct’ ideological universal solutions are doomed to failure. They all require reduced choices (rights). We are too different to ever find this acceptable. The solutions are to be found in increasing choices, not eliminating them.
#14959442
One Degree wrote:
All ‘correct’ ideological universal solutions are doomed to failure. They all require reduced choices (rights). We are too different to ever find this acceptable. The solutions are to be found in increasing choices, not eliminating them.



This, unfortunately, isn't correct (heh).

Your statement reminds me of the proverbial card that has 'The statement on the other side is FALSE.' and 'The statement on the other side is TRUE.' printed on each side, respectively.

If your own statement is to be interpreted as correct / true, then you'd be eliminating *your own* statement with the same statement, since what you're asserting is ideological itself, and should then be disregarded.

Some say that Marxism *isn't* an ideology because it only deals with empirical facts, and is thus a *science*, but I myself am flexible with the description since there can be different avenues, or 'ideologies', to a fully scientific proletarian revolution (much depends on the actual empirical conditions during the time of revolution).
#14959443
ckaihatsu wrote: Your "official" advice seems to encourage more of a *group*-based identity, based on taking participants as 'personalities'. I'm not here to be the political analogue of a celebrity, so I'm not going to be investing in my 'personality' here, but rather dealing with the political topics of the day, and political principles, etc., which is so sorely lacking on the Internet in general, despite the *medium* for such being almost ideal -- the discussion-board format.


Ok, so you have no interest in being part of the POFO community. Got it.

In that case, be prepared for lots of people not to ever take you seriously, because after all, they now know that is what you desperately want.

:lol:
#14959444
ckaihatsu wrote:This, unfortunately, isn't correct (heh).

Your statement reminds me of the proverbial card that has 'The statement on the other side is FALSE.' and 'The statement on the other side is TRUE.' printed on each side, respectively.

If your own statement is to be interpreted as correct / true, then you'd be eliminating *your own* statement with the same statement, since what you're asserting is ideological itself, and should then be disregarded.

Some say that Marxism *isn't* an ideology because it only deals with empirical facts, and is thus a *science*, but I myself am flexible with the description since there can be different avenues, or 'ideologies', to a fully scientific proletarian revolution (much depends on the actual empirical conditions during the time of revolution).


False comparison. One side of the card says this is true. My side of the card says all are true with geographic limits.
#14959457
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
Ok, so you have no interest in being part of the POFO community. Got it.

In that case, be prepared for lots of people not to ever take you seriously, because after all, they now know that is what you desperately want.

:lol:



Dude, what's the point of a discussion board for politics if the majority of posts / replies are *non-political* -- ? I've already seen this phenomenon at *other* boards, where a norm of *politics*-based statements too easily give way to a culture of communitarian group-identities. 'Playground politics' isn't *real* politics.

I'm not saying that people *shouldn't* be casual and interpersonal in appropriate sections, but that's not *me*. Of course I want to be known as 'the socialist guy' because that's something topical to the world today, and worth discussing. You really seem to be anxiety-mongering, unfortunately.


One Degree wrote:
False comparison. One side of the card says this is true. My side of the card says all are true with geographic limits.



So you're posting in a Socialism forum about your own ideology that's based on *further* balkanization of political geographic terrain -- a dynamic of separatist ultra-nationalism that's already underway in the real world, and diametrically *opposite* to socialism.
#14959460
My apologies. I was not aware a thread in ‘Socialism’ restricted arguments against socialism. Maybe the more informed posters will advise me on this. Until then, I will bow out.
#14967403
:eh:

Progressives are "prone to corruption" ?

Apparently opposed to conservatives - who are always above corruption ?!? :eh:

Hillary isnt left-wing at all. Her election campaign was to the right of Trumps election campaign. Trump wanted to reduce the worldwide military engagements of the USA. He didnt want to attack Iran.

Only parts of democrats, a pretty unsuccessful part, are still progressive.

Cooperately run businesses are more efficient actually. Of course a leadership is necessary. That doesnt mean they are worth a penny without the other parts of the company.

Its only in your head that the guy who organizes things is more worthy than the guy who does the actual work. In reality they are both equally necessary.
Election 2020

T Absolutely correct. And this is just one rea[…]

Purely speculative and subjective. It is my opini[…]

You need to educate yourself on what "compl[…]

The New, and very Dangerous "Left"

It seems this must be repeated a few thousands of[…]