I don’t mean idealist as in having ideals, I mean it as you using supernatural causes for explanation. Power is not a supernatural corrupting force. Of course, everyone seeks to act in their own interest, but organization does not turn people evil.
I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing.
The ability to replace individual leaders is a good thing, and is a common factor in socialist countries. Having high turnover in leadership is a bad thing, as it means dissatisfaction and instability.
You are right, power is not a super natural force. However, the psychological impact of power is very real and well understood. The evidence of our own experiences should be enough to tell you this. Also, there are countless psychology experiments demonstrating the corrupting influence of power, which often boils down self-preservation through a continued hold on power. People will make up any old bullshit to justify why they should in power.
The degree of corruption varies between individuals and the level of responsibility they have, but once you bring people into groups it becomes unavoidable. Public transparency and oversight is about the only thing that can constrain it.
There are plenty of published articles dealing with specific experiments, but I’m going to hold you to the same standard you expect of me. Go do your own research, it is really not that hard. You’ll discover that Powerful groups trend towards corruption (in the long term), and if you dig into the smaller scale social experiments that have been repeated around the world, you’ll discover why. It is very interesting stuff, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.
You’re treating it like a supernatural force, though, and further socialist countries do have public transparency and oversight, so you’re drawing a false comparison. People’s lived existence determines their thought, there isn’t an inherent aspect of having managerial duties that turns people evil or “corrupt.”
I’ll admit I don’t know enough about transparency in communist societies, but you need to read up on the experiments done on human behaviour in power structures. It is fascinating and scary.
Not about to get into a pantomime back and forth here, but to satisfy your curiosity.Psychology is a personal area of study. I often read the BPS and APA, though my primary interest is Developmental psychology so I prefer the BJP most months. If I had more patience for statistics I’d have made a career of it.
I have done so already. There is no such thing as a supernatural corrupting force, as I already stated. Instead, people’s lived existence, how they live, work, produce, revieve, etc. is what shapes their thoughts and thinking. How else can you explain that some people seem “immune” to this corrupting force you speak of? You leap to supernatural explanation, though unintentional, rather than engaging with a materialist explanation.
I do recommend you research socialist systems run by communist parties. They do not operate the way you have assumed.
I don’t mean idealist as in having ideals, I mean it as you using supernatural causes for explanation. Power is not a supernatural corrupting force. Of course, everyone seeks to act in their own interest, but organization does not turn people evil.
The ability to replace individual leaders is a good thing, and is a common factor in socialist countries. Having high turnover in leadership is a bad thing, as it means dissatisfaction and instability.
You are right, power is not a super natural force. However, the psychological impact of power is very real and well understood. The evidence of our own experiences should be enough to tell you this. Also, there are countless psychology experiments demonstrating the corrupting influence of power, which often boils down self-preservation through a continued hold on power. People will make up any old bullshit to justify why they should in power.
The degree of corruption varies between individuals and the level of responsibility they have, but once you bring people into groups it becomes unavoidable. Public transparency and oversight is about the only thing that can constrain it.
Bullshit there are, cite your sources or shut up
There are plenty of published articles dealing with specific experiments, but I’m going to hold you to the same standard you expect of me. Go do your own research, it is really not that hard. You’ll discover that Powerful groups trend towards corruption (in the long term), and if you dig into the smaller scale social experiments that have been repeated around the world, you’ll discover why. It is very interesting stuff, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.
You’re treating it like a supernatural force, though, and further socialist countries do have public transparency and oversight, so you’re drawing a false comparison. People’s lived existence determines their thought, there isn’t an inherent aspect of having managerial duties that turns people evil or “corrupt.”
I’ll admit I don’t know enough about transparency in communist societies, but you need to read up on the experiments done on human behaviour in power structures. It is fascinating and scary.
You’ve never read a single peer reviewed paper on the subject.
Not about to get into a pantomime back and forth here, but to satisfy your curiosity.Psychology is a personal area of study. I often read the BPS and APA, though my primary interest is Developmental psychology so I prefer the BJP most months. If I had more patience for statistics I’d have made a career of it.
I have done so already. There is no such thing as a supernatural corrupting force, as I already stated. Instead, people’s lived existence, how they live, work, produce, revieve, etc. is what shapes their thoughts and thinking. How else can you explain that some people seem “immune” to this corrupting force you speak of? You leap to supernatural explanation, though unintentional, rather than engaging with a materialist explanation.
I do recommend you research socialist systems run by communist parties. They do not operate the way you have assumed.