Does Power Corrupt

[daniel]

I was debating with someone and he said that leaders are very important to a regime. His argument was that Hitler, one man, did so much wrong, but imagine what he would do if he was not corrupt. He is using this argument to justify communism, he claims that if the communist leaders were not corrupt communist would have worked. Thus all we have to do is get the right leader and try it again he maintains.

What do others think?

Dosen't power corrupt as Acton argued?

[Captain Nate]

I don't know if power corrupts. Power is just a tool to be used, it's the philosophy a person has that is harmful. All the power of government would be irrelevant if a person of integrity held that power and had the correct philosophy (Objectivism!) and applied it.

But, the true key to preventing abuse of power is to establish a system where the government doesn't have the power to abuse you. A communist government does the exact opposite. Its philosophy is evil, so even a communist leader of integrity will commit evil with the enormous power given to him under such a system.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Captain Nate

[Capitalism Forever]

On the other thread, I asked you to ask him what he meant by "good" and "corrupt." One would think that being a good man and wanting to be a communist dictator are mutually exclusive, so it would be interesting to hear how he defines those terms.

See also my later comment in the other thread:

[...] If his definition of "efficiency" is "an outcome I like," then yes, a communist country run by HIM will be more "efficient" for him than a capitalist one--for a while, at least.

This also sheds some light on what he means by "good" vs. "corrupt" leaders of communist countries. A "good" leader is a leader who runs the country the way *I* like it.

[Capitalism Forever]

BTW: Power does not corrupt people; people corrupt themselves. The correlation between people being powerful and people being corrupt exists not because power somehow turns people of integrity into corrupt ones; it exists because power attracts people who are already corrupt. (And that is why communist countries have invariably "happened" to have bad leaders!)

[Capitalism Forever]

a communist leader of integrity

That's an oxymoron. You cannot be a communist leader with integrity anymore than you can be a murderer with integrity or a thief with integrity. (In fact, the former encompasses both of the latter.)

[Captain Nate]

That's an oxymoron. You cannot be a communist leader with integrity anymore than you can be a murderer with integrity or a thief with integrity. (In fact, the former encompasses both of the latter.)

Isn't integrity loyalty to one's convictions or values? Couldn't then "a communist of integrity" merely be one whose convictions involve a belief in altruism and the violation of the rights of others?

Essentially, what I was saying was: Even a "good" communist (one who adheres to his philosophy) is one who will do evil, corrupt or not. I didn't mean to suggest a communist could hold a virtue like integrity.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Captain Nate

[Capitalism Forever]

Even a "good" communist (one who adheres to his philosophy) is one who will do evil, corrupt or not.

Ah, I see.

Well, it is especially a "good" communist that will do evil ... the "better" he is, the more evil he will do, as loyalty to his philosophy demands that he do evil.

[Justino]

I suppose it depends on how he or she gained that power and how they sustain it. If it was gained through voluntary agreements (trade & commerce), the person must continue using peaceful means to sustain it.

If, however, the person rose to the top by force (murder or theft) or uses them to keep his place, then the person must continue that action, lest he be the next to get the axe.

[RationalBiker]

I agree with the idea that people can allow themselves to become corrupt. I do not see that power is some metaphysical entity that has sway over anyone's mind.

[BurgessLau]

Dosen't power corrupt as Acton argued?

What do you mean by "power"?

[JMeganSnow]

Isn't integrity loyalty to one's convictions or values?

Integrity is loyalty to rational convictions or values, not just whatever convictions or values you happen to hold. Virtues do not exist in a vacuum.

[Captain Nate]

Integrity is loyalty to rational convictions or values, not just whatever convictions or values you happen to hold.  Virtues do not exist in a vacuum.

Right. I expected this kind of reply, but you got what I was saying, right?

[scottkursk]

I would say his very premise is totally corrupt in that you can't say "slavery if done nicely would note be abused." Sorry, but wrong is wrong. That being said, power for the sake of power I would say that though it can "corrupt" in the sense that is can be used incorrectly. A good example is that I have a significant power inside of my office to control the flow in information. In theory, I could keep my employees completely in the dark about what is going inside of our company. I on the the other hand "push the limits" (ugh I hate that Dilbertism) as to what I can let my employees in on as to where we stand and to where and why we are doing what we are doing.

Really. I've had complaints that I allow my "direct reports" what human beings would call employees or business Wharton grads would call teammates information as "mission critical information" when it is anything but, and trust me, I am religious in my preservation about my defense of my employer and his data, but the flow of of information has to be two way for it to be effective between a direct report and his manager (boss and employee in English) has to be two way.

My employees, or team members as may be, have by my lead worked in other offices whose managers are most definitely be "control freaks" as well as "don't give a damn" managers and have found out that there is a very good medium in which an effective manager/leader provides a goal and gives the members of his office/team/what the hell ever a goal and gives them the tools they need to get there. If they need help, the leader gives them the help they need, but otherwise get out of their way. Let the real leaders shine. Losers will require a LOT of attention and quite constantly will figure it out themselves. They, in my experience, either go somehwere else on their own fix their problems and become a part of the solution. Or else they know quickly they are gone.

But that is just the voice of someone who has actually manage large numbers of varied groups of people. What about other mangers? Maybe this requires a split topic about how to mange groups of people to maximum effectiveness..

[JMeganSnow]

Right. I expected this kind of reply, but you got what I was saying, right?

Of course. Doesn't mean that I won't encourage you to say it more clearly and accurately, as far as that is within MY power.

If power corrupts, why are the mods, in general, some of the better posters? (Pretend I'm excluding myself from consideration here.)

[HaloNoble6]

Better poster or not, you don't know what I do with my power.....

[the tortured one]

man, it's just excuse after excuse for some people. Now the reason communism fell was because it had bad leaders? Goodness it's good to have a reminder of these people's utter irrationality everyonce and a while.

I am reminded of the time in Atlas Shrugged when President Thompson and Wesley Mouch needed a scapegoat for their problems, and tried to get John Galt to become the new economic dictator.

I would ask him that, if communism's failure is completely due to bad leaders, then why has communism consistently failed where ever it has been attempted? One would assume there has at least been a few good leaders, statistically, right? If communism's track record is so bad, then why is Capitalism's track record so good? Even what might be regarded as the worst of the capitalist leaders end up doing a certain degree of good. General Pinochet, for example, was a right-wing dictator who wrested control from the communists, and despite his brutal tactics he is singularly responsible for the recovery of Chile's economy, which had been devastated by the communists. Most people regard Pinochet as a facist dictator, and yet it is ok for Fidel Castro to wine and dine with moronic celebrities while he brutally oppresses his own people.

if he tries to say something about Cuba being held down by the United States, ask him why Taiwan is doing so much better, despite economic sanctions from China. and don't let him yank you around with the whole "supported by the U.S" routine, as Cuba has been a crap-hole even when it was sucking off the soviet teat.

some people would just prefer to stick their head in the sand and pretend like history never happened. Often times its better to merely ignore them and move on with life, as communism is more often than not, a phase that punk teenagers go through.

[Captain Nate]

Of course.  Doesn't mean that I won't encourage you to say it more clearly and accurately, as far as that is within MY power.

Right, I don't want you to think I was angry or anything, I actually do appreciate your effort in helping to refine my discussion.

[scottkursk]

Better poster or not, you don't know what I do with my power.....

*cough* NBA finals thread *cough*