You pointed to China punishing corruption as evidence of “your capitalist country” having “less corruption.”
No, I didn’t. I say two things but never used the first as a proof of the second. For someone who tries to look like an intellectual, you seem have reading troubles… like when you thought that I said that classes don’t exist while I said the contrary.
we are talking about class, not income, which is not useful for our purposes at all
It is though as, on average, higher classes have higher incomes.
Also not sure why you abandoned the point about large industry and administration being necessary, did you just silently concede that point?
Because it’s irrelevant. The question about the necessity or not of hierarchies is an other debate. Something can be bad and inescapable at the same time.
Here’s what you said responding to my point on class and the mode of production shaping our thought:
It’s an interesting theory. But without a study in an other mode of production, it’s wishful thinking… and to hope for a new mode of production to change how the brain works, and in such a deep level, is not a very credible one. Moreover, it’s not relevant for communist organization within capitalism.
This is fairly reasonable to see as a denial of class’s impact on how we think, in favor of a more nebulous and less-defined “power.”
Regarding corruption:
Hundred of thousands of trials for corruption 63 years after the foundation of the People Republic (this declaration is from 2012)… it does look like a pretty huge scale to me. There’s corruption in my capitalist country, but far less than in China.
You’re using the total number as your metric for those on trial for corruption in China for China being “corrupt,” more so than “your capitalist country.” Any reasonable reading of this statement implies you believe the number of corruption trials is a good indication for absolute levels of corruption, but this erases the difference in mode of production, the class in power, and therefore which country is more likely to punish corruption.
It is though as, on average, higher classes have higher incomes.
This changes dramatically in socialism, where the working classes are in control. The conflation of class with income implies administrators in socialism are a “higher class” than the rest of the working classes, when in fact they are the same. When we are discussing the so-called corruptive nature of “power,” this becomes a critical hole.
Because it’s irrelevant. The question about the necessity or not of hierarchies is an other debate. Something can be bad and inescapable at the same time.
It’s absolutely relevant given the topic of discussion is whether or not “power corrupts.”
No, I didn’t. I say two things but never used the first as a proof of the second. For someone who tries to look like an intellectual, you seem have reading troubles… like when you thought that I said that classes don’t exist while I said the contrary.
It is though as, on average, higher classes have higher incomes.
Because it’s irrelevant. The question about the necessity or not of hierarchies is an other debate. Something can be bad and inescapable at the same time.
Here’s what you said responding to my point on class and the mode of production shaping our thought:
This is fairly reasonable to see as a denial of class’s impact on how we think, in favor of a more nebulous and less-defined “power.”
Regarding corruption:
You’re using the total number as your metric for those on trial for corruption in China for China being “corrupt,” more so than “your capitalist country.” Any reasonable reading of this statement implies you believe the number of corruption trials is a good indication for absolute levels of corruption, but this erases the difference in mode of production, the class in power, and therefore which country is more likely to punish corruption.
This changes dramatically in socialism, where the working classes are in control. The conflation of class with income implies administrators in socialism are a “higher class” than the rest of the working classes, when in fact they are the same. When we are discussing the so-called corruptive nature of “power,” this becomes a critical hole.
It’s absolutely relevant given the topic of discussion is whether or not “power corrupts.”