I’m not exactly sure what the question is, but if its that “power always corrupts”, this might be true for capitalist countries, which allow private ownership of capital, and creates a system that encourages and incentivizes accumulation of power.
But In a socialist state, where the heights of the economy are controlled not by private capitalist dictators, but by collective decision-making, and production decisions are controlled at the collective political level, then no one person can accumulate that much power, and they would be (and are) punished when they try to subvert the collective authority.
Taking the example of police, the important question is who commands them, and for whose benefit? In proletarian states, police are commanded not by capitalists who use them to protect their private property, but by the socialist state who commands them to protect the people. Socialist states are going to be receptive to accusations of abuses, because that means they’re harming the people.
That’s a key distinction between proletarian cops and capitalist ones.
I’m not exactly sure what the question is, but if its that “power always corrupts”, this might be true for capitalist countries, which allow private ownership of capital, and creates a system that encourages and incentivizes accumulation of power.
I haven’t posed a question. And what I am trying to get at is that power itself incentivizes accumulation and retention of power.
then no one person can accumulate that much power,
It doesn’t have to be one person, a council, committee, or other group of people can always be incentivized to retain and accumulate power.
but by the socialist state who commands them to protect the people. Socialist states are going to be receptive to accusations of abuses, because that means they’re harming the people.
The PRC regularly attacks citizens and journalists that criticize their government.
I’m not exactly sure what the question is, but if its that “power always corrupts”, this might be true for capitalist countries, which allow private ownership of capital, and creates a system that encourages and incentivizes accumulation of power.
But In a socialist state, where the heights of the economy are controlled not by private capitalist dictators, but by collective decision-making, and production decisions are controlled at the collective political level, then no one person can accumulate that much power, and they would be (and are) punished when they try to subvert the collective authority.
Taking the example of police, the important question is who commands them, and for whose benefit? In proletarian states, police are commanded not by capitalists who use them to protect their private property, but by the socialist state who commands them to protect the people. Socialist states are going to be receptive to accusations of abuses, because that means they’re harming the people.
That’s a key distinction between proletarian cops and capitalist ones.
I haven’t posed a question. And what I am trying to get at is that power itself incentivizes accumulation and retention of power.
It doesn’t have to be one person, a council, committee, or other group of people can always be incentivized to retain and accumulate power.
The PRC regularly attacks citizens and journalists that criticize their government.