dwindling7373

You are surely well aware of the nefarious propaganda the west did against Stalin.

Imagine it was true and you have the perfect depiction on how such corruption would potentially look like.

Another simple example? Stalin could have promised an administraive role to a person in exchange for sexual favors.

I'm not saying he did, but, under Communism, or rather under the trasition toward communism, that would have been a possible abuse of [not power].

This is all irrelevant to my point, at the same time it kinda makes my point about the limit of your positions so...

My job here is done.

Have a day!

The concept of hierarchy itself within democratic institutions does not justify a corrupting pursuit of power.

Of couse it doesn't "justify" it. It sure builds a nice playground for whomever loves doing it though.

That's why every democracy has an attempt to prevent exploitation, such as a limit to the terms of their leaders, popular referendum, separation of powers...

But of course you know that. It seems you are convinced that, by virtue of messiatic powers, somehow the Communist (transitional) apparatus was immune to that corruption.

I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a “pursuit of power.”

Luckily for us, we do live under capitalism, so there's no need to speculate there. As i'm sure you have plenty of chances to verify daily, it's not as efficient as you make it sounds. It tends to embolden those that are narrowly focused on the accumulation of capital, but even in doing that, it's an inefficient and rather messy machination.

In a similar way it could be said of power under socialism. It's possible despite its "best" effort that capitalist adiacent pulsions survived the new structure of... guidance? action? decisiont making? coordination? (it's still power)

Another point of touch can be personal greed. Capitalism leaves it unchecked by design, but it has always accompanied scarcity. It's hunger, if you will, and if you could argue such pulsion have been imposed onto the natural man, of conquered by ascetism, none of those equate the background of a pre-1917 Russia.

Some of those people, no matter the books they read, could potentially still thirst and hunger for "more".

I once again ask you if the simple asimmetry between giving orders and taking orders does not justify, theoretically, a selfish "pursuit of power".

You seem to conflate power with money.

I don't think there's many way to be more powerful than holding power in a society where the different access to goods are irrelevant.

You think ambition fueled by money are more powerful than the ones fueled by idealism, purity, rightfullness and, of course, narcissism and domination?

Do you really think it's all the same to those people, to Stalin himself, if he was farming potatoes or signing the 5 year plan under oh-so-genuine thundering applause of the assemply?

Come the fuck on.

Any attempt to discuss earlier than that is wild conjecture so the only responsible way to deal with it is to accept that it is currently unknowable.

Holy fuckity fuck.

Stop using those words. Stop saying "ANY ATTEMPT" or "THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE". Stop laying out matter of factly that when you ask scientists they answer in a certain way.

Are you a scientist? Did you ask a theoretical astrophysicist? Are you quoting a paper on the subject?

This is your respectable clearly limited opinion. Portay it as such.

I never said consensus settles a matter, I'm just saying that pulling stuff out your ass and pretending they come from a position of consensus is harmful.

Also you clearly read "The Theory of Everything" or something to that extent by Hawkings and he quite literally mention that he's going to study what happens before the Big Bang...

Old habits die hard. I meant people with a lot more power than the other people.

That was my opinion according to the sources I have been exposed to. I'm glad to deepen my understanding on the matter, I'll just point out that in the history of mankind most leader pushed to stay in power, when they were meant to step down, and stayed in power when the choice was purely up to them.

Isn't it weird that the rejections were unanimous? Don't you think there may have been a certain, I don't know... Hesitation into suggesting they found the head of state not fit for the role?

As I said, I'll look better into it, but I am not currently convinced Stalin was an exception to the trend that affected most of the highest ruling class through history.

Look up Phenomenology.

There's a fourth option: every reference to the mystical properties of black holes on lemmy creates new universes through some as yet undiscovered process. Then your existence just becomes a statistical eventuality, as do every other life that you could ever live.

It’s like arguing absolute zero doesn’t have consensus as if I was part of the specialists that push forward our collective knowledge on the matter while at best knowing 0 is a small number.

The salient point is that Something HAS to exist because the opposite is literal meaninglessness and that has scientific consensus.

That's literally opposite to the scientific consensus. People are in fact looking for models that justify why there is something rather than nothing, and it's not because "the opposite is literal meaninglessness".

Please, please, please think of all the people that infer knowledge from an autoritatve language heard online.