this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
47 points (63.3% liked)
Memes
54622 readers
715 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any systems of government run by people in a time of resource limits, and when money is still in wide use, will inevitably become corrupt.
Once we can have anything we want, whenever we want, then maybe we'll be free.
It's better for the working classes to control the state, even if corruption exists and must be actively suppressed.
The reality is that "leadership" is NOT a working class. It has power and authority over the society it leads, and power corrupts. Democracy is the only hope for society right now because it is the only form of government that has regular replacement of leadership built in.
However, the corrupting influence of money, controlled by the mega rich, will never go away, no matter what system of government you choose.
I'll say it again, take humans out of critical leadership positions and get rid of money.
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.
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.
I don't pretend to know everything about Leftist theory, but it doesn't seem complicated. Also, I'm from the UK, where things different enough from the US that it is worth mentioning.
I don't care for any governmental system that exists now. They are all based on state control of individual freedoms. I am essentially an Anarchist, but with "protection from a distance" meaning something automated and trusted that protects people from harm and control by others, while allowing everyone to do as they please. I realise this is a futuristic fantasy but it is worth aiming for imho.
Before I critique communism further I want to make it clear that I know western democracies are corrupt, some extremely so, and that corruption is driven by the super rich. (Oil, tech, arms, other evil shit).
The nature of corruption is very different between western Democracy and communism. In the west it mostly goes public (and not much gets done about it apparently), but changes are made and things do generally improve in the long term. In china it is all done behind closed doors, and is about protecting bureaucracies. For me the "public vs "private" behaviour is the most important difference. When issues are public is there a chance for the public to have a voice, but when it's all behind closed doors what chance do the public have?
Also, it is about individual freedoms to do and say what you like without fear of state interference, which communist states don't have a good reputation for. I'm sure you can think of a few subjects you can't discuss in China. Why is that? What subjects can't you discuss in the UK?
Granted, right now western culture is going through a period of hyper conservatism with freedoms being oppressed, but this is a battle ground with voices from every corner speaking out, which is impossible in a communist state. How would this be dealt with in China? Either way, I am hopeful this too shall pass, and we'll move away from the extremes of capitalism (once the current generation of old people die off)
Regarding my idealism around getting rid of money. T I know this is a problem we can't solve today, but I don't think it's far away This is a side topic for another post I feel. I'll write up my thoughts and post it.
This goes so far beyond that. You don’t even know the basics. What you’re doing is building a house of cards out of vibes on top of an ingrained liberal foundation. There’s no material or really any serious analysis across any of your comments, just assumptions about “power,” “freedom,” and “human nature” that you’ve inherited from Western ideology and never seriously interrogated. You think it's simple because you've taken a vibes first approach to it as opposed to doing any study which might challenge your comfort.
If you're British, German, American it doesn't matter you are situated in the imperial core reaping the rewards of imperialism. You received concessions from the bourgeoisie to keep you from seriously challenging the largest most advanced immiseration machine in human history. Hence I used the term Euro-American. I could also just say white/western "leftist" or shitlib or radlib or whatever other word for privileged member of the imperial core it doesn't really change much . Your class interest is aligned with the imperialist empire and in direct opposition to the oppressed of the world. You should read Settlers and Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism
Then you try to lecture me(someone actually from and living in China) about how corruption is handled here, and you’re simply wrong. Anti-corruption trials are public. Everyone knows about them. Officials, executives, generals(people right up to the very top) are investigated, removed, and jailed under the Communist Party of China. In the West, corruption is largely legalized through lobbying, revolving doors, and finance. And even when the line is crossed, it’s usually overlooked as long as it doesn’t threaten the moneyed class.
You also claim things “generally improve in the long term” in the West. Improve for whom? Whatever social-democratic gains Europe and the US had were built on and sustained by imperialism and neocolonial extraction. Euro-American countries raped and looted the periphery for centuries to fund the “treats” you now point to as progress at home. Meanwhile, without plundering the Global South, China alone lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty through planned socialist development. While your comfort was subsidized by other people’s misery.
Your fixation on “individual freedoms” just confirms to me your liberal foundation that you refuse to reckon with. You’re poisoned by hyper-individualism. You talk about freedom as personal expression divorced from class power, ownership, housing, healthcare, or production. That’s just consumer ideology. You don’t seem to understand that collective material conditions matter more than abstract personal liberty. Reactionaries and bourgeoisie current should be repressed, they should not have the freedom to exploit others.
And on “free speech”: you seriously overestimate how free it is in the West. Read Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti. He explains in a way that should be easy for you as a beginner to understand how media ownership and elite filtering manufacture topics and angles long before anything reaches public debate. Look at what’s happening right now: protesters arrested and brutalised en masse across Europe and the US, specific to your location Palestine Action being designated a terrorist organization in the UK, and in Germany open criticism of Israel being criminalized. So spare me the fairy tale about open discourse. You’re allowed to talk, as long as it doesn’t threaten capital or the empire but don't forget who's holding the reigns it's not the people.
Finally, coming back to your “no hierarchy + automation + abolish money soon” vision, it avoids every serious question: how do you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, defend society, and prevent capital from reasserting itself? You don’t answer any of that. You just gesture toward a futuristic fantasy. Marxists have already long addressed this: money and the state only wither away after global class abolition. Pretending we can skip the transition period is utopian fantasy. Try read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and Critique of the Gotha Programme
I know I am badly informed about the way things are done in a functional Communist state, like China, and my views are entirely coloured by my western up bringing. I'm over 50yo so I have a lot of cultural assumptions to overcome. That said I struggle with the idea that communism can function without very strict controls and closed door bureaucracy. I guess I prefer to KNOW I'm being lied to by the media and my government, rather than only suspect it but not be able to talk about it.
Regards my desire for individual freedoms, this is not about consumerism. I'm a simplistic guy, I'm not dreaming of the shop-till-you-drop life, or a mansion with 50 cars. I'm talking about my ability to go places and say things without fear that I will be arrested for sharing my views. There will always be consequences for our actions, and if what we say directly results in destruction, pain, or death that is a good thing, but I won't be silenced just to keep the peace.
I'll say it again. We are in challenging times with hyper conservatism ruining everyone's day, but I'm hopeful.
Look I understand a lot of where you're coming from given your background, however:
Basically everything you “know” about politics and political economy is seemingly somewhere between wildly exaggerated and outright fairytale, and you don’t yet grasp the scale or sophistication of the narrative control you’re actually living under.
You say you prefer to know you’re being lied to, but in the West you usually don’t. That’s the point. Through ownership, framing, omission, and repetition, discourse is managed in the boardroom long before anything reaches you. I already linked you Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti for a reason: every story shown or not shown, every angle chosen, exists to shape what feels “normal” or “thinkable.” That ideological hegemony is deeper and more effective than the cartoon version of censorship projected onto China and socialist states in general.
Your second paragraph still rests on the same misunderstanding, communism isn’t about silencing people to “keep the peace,” it’s about suppressing reactionary and bourgeois forces so they can’t sabotage collective development as they have repeatedly proven themselves to do historically as their class interest is diametrically opposed to the interests of the masses.
Finally, this rise of conservatism(fascism) you’re talking about isn’t some temporary cultural mood swing, it’s capitalism in decay. When imperialism can’t externalize crisis anymore, its violence turns inward. That’s why you’re feeling it now. The teeth of empire always come home eventually. If you’re serious about understanding any of this, you need to move past liberal intuitions and actually study political economy. Hope without analysis just leaves you disarmed. You really should read the books/articles I linked in the last reply.
I like your reply. It is generally constructive and reasonable, and shows an understanding of the many sides in this discussion.
Your last paragraph articulates a feeling I hear shared across my friends and colleagues, that Western life is imploding and has been for a long time.
I clearly need to read more.
I wrote a Marxist-Leninist study guide, basic course, targeting 20 hours or less of reading time. There are also audiobooks if you prefer that format, when available. This won't get you to understand China's specific systems, but is more general to Marxism-Leninism, which helps with understanding China's growth and development.
Lol. Deeply unserious.
I was hoping for a serious answer. I want to know why you think this view point is so wrong.
Well at least you can admit that much. But that admission, while surprising to no one here, essentially invalidates the rest of your following comment, not to mention most of the others you've posted in this thread. You don't have to know "everything" but you do have to know something about the topic you're trying to speak on, which you've made clear you don't. You don't seem to know anything about leftist theory, and saying "it doesn't seem complicated" reveals that is in fact the case. It's like saying "I don't know everything about biology, but it doesn't seem complicated." It's just a vapid statement on its face.
There is a certain well known phrase that you should consider taking to heart: "No investigation - no right to speak." In other words, if you haven't bothered to take the initiative and time to learn about the topic you're trying to expound on, don't try to expound on it. All you will do is reveal your ignorance and make people who HAVE taken the time and done the work to educate themselves roll their eyes at you in frustration, which is exactly what has happened here. Go read some books (at the very least) and then come back. You call yourself an anarchist but you don't even know what actual anarchist thinkers and theorists have accomplished, discovered, argued for, etc beyond slogans apparently. If you want to have even the tiniest hope of developing a credible, realistic, non-batshit political framework for yourself, let alone one you advocate that other people should adhere to, you are going to have to learn about the others that already exist, particularly those with centuries of hard work built upon by many individuals not just through their own education and intellectual rigor, but also through literal application in the real world. At the absolute very fucking bare minimum least you need to "lurk more."
Someone is trying to educate you out of your wild idealism and you're being an obstinate asshole
Everyone who disagrees with me is AI and other arguments for the massively propagandised
Not at all. I have to deal with a lot of AI generated slop, and the first half of your reply had a distinctly AI slop sound to it. That's why I gave my reply then only mentioned the AI bit at the very end.
You should probably stop having chatGPT write your responses for you, because I'm not the same user.
It didn't seem like it was written by AI at all. You're just being willfully obstinate because someone disagrees with you and that must mean there's something wrong with them. Next you're gonna go crying about russian bots or some similar shit.
Wow, OK. so something wasn't liked in my reply. Did I hit a nerve ?
Ah, "hit a nerve," the age-old adage of the smuglord redditor child. No, you merely took a shit on the floor, and just because the adults in the room were disgusted by the stench, that doesn't mean you were onto something.
I think you are referring to the AI comment at the end of my now deleted post. Happy to repost minus that bit, though I stand by previous my assessment.
Administration is not a class in and of itself, either capitalists control the state or the working classes control the state. Power isn't some supernatural corruptive force, either. Further, socialist countries are the only genuinely democratic countries, replacing leadership isn't a sign of democracy, but instability and dissatisfaction with government. I don't think you actually know what we communists are talking about, and you're trapped in idealist and metaphysical thinking.
I'll admit I am thinking in idealistic terms, but that is the point. I believe in punching through your targets, and not just settle for the "best of a job lot". I hope for a society that can move beyond the types of government we've seen so far.
Power always corrupts. Some individuals are able to avoid this but organised groups never can. Maybe some groups are more altruistic in their goals, initially at least, but the longer they exist the more self preservationist they become. This is basic human behaviour.
I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing. If a society (communist or not) is not satisfied with the performance of its leaders they should be replaced. The power to replace leaders must be in the hands of the people, not as an exception but as routine. However, I don't know of a communist government that allows this, unless I've misunderstood?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Source: idk, people say it as a cliche a lot so it must be true!
Don't be childish. You know full well that was not the intent or focus or my point. Focus on the human nature stuff and read about the psychology of control and self preservation of groups.
Human nature doesn't exist outside of the context of its existence, the social life of humanity. Under different material conditions, "human nature" is wildly different. An appeal to a higher, supernatural "human nature" is therefore not a materialist explanation.