4 ms·

>Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome. Within this totalitarian framework, the power would be given to the state, a

>Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome. Within this totalitarian framework, the power would be given to the state, acting on behalf of all the people. c.f. Stalinist/Maoist mode

vkou 4y ago
Under our current framework, power consolidates in sometimes-feuding, often colluding oligarchs and large corporations. It is also, of course, all done in the name of the people.
- lazide 4y ago
  Which prevents any wannabe Stalin or Mao from doing much, since everyone is busy feuding instead of pulling together to accomplish a disaster more effectively. Everything is always done in the name of ‘the people’ if it helps sell the lie. Always has been that way.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Instead of one tinpot tyrant in your life, you have a dozen, each of which wants a pound of flesh from you. Most of the feuding they do is not with each other, but with their subjects. Capital owners usually act in unison when it comes to their class interests, it's the rest of us that are busy being divided by culture wars and the gaffe of the week.
    - lazide 4y ago
      I take it you’ve never had this discussion with someone who has dealt with actual tyrants? No one who was under their sphere of influence would classify Stalin or Mao as tinpot. They killed nearly 100 million of their own people between the two of them. Khmer Rouge being a third example. I’ll take squabbling (but still competing) landlords over ‘great leaps forward’ or holodomor any day of the week.
imtringued 4y ago
Capitalism concentrates power within oligarchs. Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats. They don't even attempt to solve the problem. The decentralisation of power isn't even being considered.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  That's correct if you replace "Communism" with "authoritarianism".
  - Slamidan 4y ago
    In reality they have proven to be the same. As studied, and as the logic would follow the elite simply transfer from system to system as performance disparities persist through the generations because of genetics. Through revolutions under different systems tracked family lines out performed others regardless of system. A look at "communist" china. Persistence through Revolutions http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_papers/pdffiles/dp20722.pdf http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_pap...
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Huh? My point was that "Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats" should be "Authoritarianism concentrates power within bureaucrats". That's pretty much by definition.

vkou 4y ago

Under our current framework, power consolidates in sometimes-feuding, often colluding oligarchs and large corporations. It is also, of course, all done in the name of the people.

lazide 4y ago
Which prevents any wannabe Stalin or Mao from doing much, since everyone is busy feuding instead of pulling together to accomplish a disaster more effectively. Everything is always done in the name of ‘the people’ if it helps sell the lie. Always has been that way.
- vkou 4y ago
  Instead of one tinpot tyrant in your life, you have a dozen, each of which wants a pound of flesh from you. Most of the feuding they do is not with each other, but with their subjects. Capital owners usually act in unison when it comes to their class interests, it's the rest of us that are busy being divided by culture wars and the gaffe of the week.
  - lazide 4y ago
    I take it you’ve never had this discussion with someone who has dealt with actual tyrants? No one who was under their sphere of influence would classify Stalin or Mao as tinpot. They killed nearly 100 million of their own people between the two of them. Khmer Rouge being a third example. I’ll take squabbling (but still competing) landlords over ‘great leaps forward’ or holodomor any day of the week.

imtringued 4y ago

Capitalism concentrates power within oligarchs. Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats. They don't even attempt to solve the problem. The decentralisation of power isn't even being considered.

goodpoint 4y ago
That's correct if you replace "Communism" with "authoritarianism".
- Slamidan 4y ago
  In reality they have proven to be the same. As studied, and as the logic would follow the elite simply transfer from system to system as performance disparities persist through the generations because of genetics. Through revolutions under different systems tracked family lines out performed others regardless of system. A look at "communist" china. Persistence through Revolutions http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_papers/pdffiles/dp20722.pdf http://www.bristol.ac.uk/efm/media/workingpapers/working_pap...
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Huh? My point was that "Communism concentrates power within bureaucrats" should be "Authoritarianism concentrates power within bureaucrats". That's pretty much by definition.