This line of thinking is idealist and deeply unserious “baby leftism”.
“Just remove leadership” and “get rid of money” is not a political program. It’s a slogan. Every class society has leadership and structures of power. The real question is which class controls them, and through what institutions.
Leadership is not automatically a separate class. Under socialism, leadership is supposed to be subordinated to proletarian power through party discipline, mass supervision, and state control over capital. Corruption is a contradiction of the socialist transition period, not proof that the entire project is invalid. Treating it that way is infantile.
Look at the CPC. They openly recognize corruption as a systemic danger and run continuous anti-corruption campaigns that jail and execute billionaires, senior officials, and generals. Compare that to liberal “democracies,” where corruption is legalized via lobbying and campaign finance and a blind eye being turned when those already blurred lines are crossed.
Take Jack Ma. When he tried to push aggressive financialization that would have subordinated productive industry to speculative capital, he was disciplined and his empire was reined in. In the United States, the same behavior is rewarded, normalized, and expanded. Finance capital literally writes policy.
In socialism, capital is constrained by the state; in capitalism, the state is owned by capital.
Saying “democracy is the only hope” without asking democracy for which class is pure liberal abstraction. Bourgeois democracy just rotates which capitalist is managing the country. It does not challenge capital itself.
And “remove humans from leadership”? That’s tech-utopian nonsense. Machines don’t resolve class contradictions. Only organized masses do.
Yes, money corrupts. Yes, corruption exists. Marxists already understand this. The answer isn’t abolishing government by decree, it’s proletarian state power, continuous class struggle, mass line, and strict control over capital during the transition to communism.
Reducing all this to “power corrupts, therefore everything is invalid” is not serious. It’s just nihilist bullshit.
Corruption is entirely linked to power. To believe that one system of government is better able to manage corruption than another is exceptionalism.
My point about getting rid of money is not a slogan, it is a key property of a society that has matured beyond such exemplars of poverty.
Until society is able to operate without hierarchical overachieving leadership, corruption will never stop. To believe that the primary leaders anywhere are not perpetuating their continued control and power is naive, and indicates some ignorance of what humans are and why they behave as they do.
Also, I’m calling big chunks of your response AI gen’d, which suggests a wish to win an argument rather than comprehend reality.
Wow bot jacketing me instead of actually contending with anything I have to say. unfortunately not the first time.
Corruption is not caused by “power” in the abstract. It’s produced by class relations and ownership of production. Every class society has authority, the issue is which class controls it. That is until class society is abolished on a global scale, but that’s so far in the future acting like it’s the next step is infantile and ridiculous.
Saying “no system handles corruption better than another” is just blatantly false. Under the Communist Party of China, billionaires and senior officials are regularly investigated, removed, and jailed. In capitalist states, corruption is legalized and encouraged pointing this out isn’t exceptionalism I’m not sure you know what that word means. Is it exceptionalism to say that liberal democracy handles representation of the people better than feudalism? Obviously not that’s ridiculous.
I’ll give the same example again as you skipped over it to bot jacket me. Jack Ma was disciplined for pushing US-style financialization. In the United States, that same behavior is rewarded and institutionalized.
“Get rid of money” without explaining how you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, and defend society during transition is not a program, it’s a slogan. Repeating this again from earlier: money like the state only withers away after classes are abolished far in the future.
Corruption is a known contradiction of the socialist transition period. It does not delegitimize the socialist project it simply proves continuous class struggle and anti-corruption campaigns are necessary hence their implementation in socialist states under communist parties.
Where you complain about “hierarchy” you’re just doing vague “human-nature” metaphysics. This is idealism and is about as reliable as scripture for analysis.
Look I don’t want to be mean (even if I find you to be unduly arrogant and condescending and I really don’t appreciate the bot jacketing), however these comments reek of Euro-American left liberalism. All vibes no dialectical or historical materialism or really any serious analysis at all.
You effectively do the “human nature” bit which is idealist metaphysics bullshit and you really seem to lack any understanding of any leftist theory.
You really should consider studying scientific socialism and deconstructing your liberal foundations. Vibes are not analysis and that’s all you have for now. If you want I can recommend you some books/articles that can help you but I have a feeling you disagree with my framing of you.
This line of thinking is idealist and deeply unserious “baby leftism”.
“Just remove leadership” and “get rid of money” is not a political program. It’s a slogan. Every class society has leadership and structures of power. The real question is which class controls them, and through what institutions.
Leadership is not automatically a separate class. Under socialism, leadership is supposed to be subordinated to proletarian power through party discipline, mass supervision, and state control over capital. Corruption is a contradiction of the socialist transition period, not proof that the entire project is invalid. Treating it that way is infantile.
Look at the CPC. They openly recognize corruption as a systemic danger and run continuous anti-corruption campaigns that jail and execute billionaires, senior officials, and generals. Compare that to liberal “democracies,” where corruption is legalized via lobbying and campaign finance and a blind eye being turned when those already blurred lines are crossed.
Take Jack Ma. When he tried to push aggressive financialization that would have subordinated productive industry to speculative capital, he was disciplined and his empire was reined in. In the United States, the same behavior is rewarded, normalized, and expanded. Finance capital literally writes policy.
In socialism, capital is constrained by the state; in capitalism, the state is owned by capital.
Saying “democracy is the only hope” without asking democracy for which class is pure liberal abstraction. Bourgeois democracy just rotates which capitalist is managing the country. It does not challenge capital itself.
And “remove humans from leadership”? That’s tech-utopian nonsense. Machines don’t resolve class contradictions. Only organized masses do.
Yes, money corrupts. Yes, corruption exists. Marxists already understand this. The answer isn’t abolishing government by decree, it’s proletarian state power, continuous class struggle, mass line, and strict control over capital during the transition to communism.
Reducing all this to “power corrupts, therefore everything is invalid” is not serious. It’s just nihilist bullshit.
Corruption is entirely linked to power. To believe that one system of government is better able to manage corruption than another is exceptionalism.
My point about getting rid of money is not a slogan, it is a key property of a society that has matured beyond such exemplars of poverty.
Until society is able to operate without hierarchical overachieving leadership, corruption will never stop. To believe that the primary leaders anywhere are not perpetuating their continued control and power is naive, and indicates some ignorance of what humans are and why they behave as they do.
Also, I’m calling big chunks of your response AI gen’d, which suggests a wish to win an argument rather than comprehend reality.
Wow bot jacketing me instead of actually contending with anything I have to say. unfortunately not the first time.
Corruption is not caused by “power” in the abstract. It’s produced by class relations and ownership of production. Every class society has authority, the issue is which class controls it. That is until class society is abolished on a global scale, but that’s so far in the future acting like it’s the next step is infantile and ridiculous.
Saying “no system handles corruption better than another” is just blatantly false. Under the Communist Party of China, billionaires and senior officials are regularly investigated, removed, and jailed. In capitalist states, corruption is legalized and encouraged pointing this out isn’t exceptionalism I’m not sure you know what that word means. Is it exceptionalism to say that liberal democracy handles representation of the people better than feudalism? Obviously not that’s ridiculous.
I’ll give the same example again as you skipped over it to bot jacket me. Jack Ma was disciplined for pushing US-style financialization. In the United States, that same behavior is rewarded and institutionalized.
“Get rid of money” without explaining how you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, and defend society during transition is not a program, it’s a slogan. Repeating this again from earlier: money like the state only withers away after classes are abolished far in the future.
Corruption is a known contradiction of the socialist transition period. It does not delegitimize the socialist project it simply proves continuous class struggle and anti-corruption campaigns are necessary hence their implementation in socialist states under communist parties.
Where you complain about “hierarchy” you’re just doing vague “human-nature” metaphysics. This is idealism and is about as reliable as scripture for analysis.
Look I don’t want to be mean (even if I find you to be unduly arrogant and condescending and I really don’t appreciate the bot jacketing), however these comments reek of Euro-American left liberalism. All vibes no dialectical or historical materialism or really any serious analysis at all.
You effectively do the “human nature” bit which is idealist metaphysics bullshit and you really seem to lack any understanding of any leftist theory.
You really should consider studying scientific socialism and deconstructing your liberal foundations. Vibes are not analysis and that’s all you have for now. If you want I can recommend you some books/articles that can help you but I have a feeling you disagree with my framing of you.