Is the accumulation of power a moral imperative?

[El_Machinae]

Who says you know better than someone ?

There is that risk. Ideologies often suffer from the huge effect of being dominated by people overly confident in themselves. But regardless of whether you need to be right to do things well, you still need power to stop people from doing bad things.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, but that tends to be called enfranchisement, e.g. an enfranchised populace which distributes power; rather than the opposite an accumulation of power.

 

[El_Machinae]

How do you distribute power without having it?

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

You mean is there some moral imperative to rule over people because you claim to know what is best for them? No, of course not.

I am all in favor of people being informed as humanly possible, in as many things as is possible, and allowing them to make decisions for themselves. There is not a problem that can't be overcome with everyone becoming less ignorant about everything in general...

 

[Hygro]

Me personally? No. That’s a recipe for disaster. Us? Yes absolutely or we’re all fudged

like, this, yep.

Why so? Off the top, both of you have sober minds that can both handle complexities and compress them with minimal distortion. Sounds like a recipe for everyone's wellbeing, to me.

Like, obviously implicit in this is that the accumulation of power involves incredible self-sacrifice, which means all the bad part of "sacrifice." Simultaneously, it's going to be personally relative, the scale is variable. So like, why not you?

i feel there's a disconnect between thread title and OP wording. is the accumulation of power a moral imperative? no. should competent people have power? yes. it may look like splitting hairs, but the difference is an important one to me. the second one means that yes, distributing power justly and efficiently is good, but accumulation of power in itself is not the core of that; it covers a lot of things that are neither just nor efficient.

It's not splitting hairs at all, I agree it's important. But as in all things, every time someone doesn't a thing, a thing it doesn't. This abstracted, make-it-distant position is basically the fourth option in the poll. It's trivial to say "power should be wielded by the good and competent", how to get there at the very least involves a person building their wealth/pedigree/social connections/media image/expertise/relative anonymity/clear mind at the expense of staying the same.

 

[Hygro]

Remember the Soviet Union and Pravda.

Pravda was generally despised.

The power was with the communist party because they had the KGB to send you
to Siberia, if you dissented too much; not with the news organisation Pravda.

Democracy existed with the local soviet at your factory etc until central planning curtailed that.

Ok so instead of answering the question you changed the hypothetical to:
imagine there isn't a democracy and there is a dictatorship

You mean is there some moral imperative to rule over people because you claim to know what is best for them? No, of course not.

I am all in favor of people being informed as humanly possible, in as many things as is possible, and allowing them to make decisions for themselves. There is not a problem that can't be overcome with everyone becoming less ignorant about everything in general...

That's not what I mean. I hope you didn't interpret the thread's boundaries as defined by a mind that small.

However, to your second point, that's obviously false on any short time scale. People are less ignorant than ever and some problems are not being overcome. Or, information is the opiate of the masses. Every day people delay acting because it's easier to consume more articles, videos at a rate far greater than what helps them take the optimal next step, and then the paralysis analysis meets imposter syndrome setting in. And then you go "well someone must be so excellent given the possibilities, I shouldn't even try" which invariably turns out to be false as you watch a decade go by and that person never emerges and the group doesn't tackle it by some shared invisible appendage.

 

[Angst]

Why so? Off the top, both of you have sober minds that can both handle complexities and compress them with minimal distortion. Sounds like a recipe for everyone's wellbeing, to me.

Like, obviously implicit in this is that the accumulation of power involves incredible self-sacrifice, which means all the bad part of "sacrifice." Simultaneously, it's going to be personally relative, the scale is variable. So like, why not you?

you're very kind, but i don't trust my own judgment well enough for this. also even if what i think is good, i'm more of a thinker than a doer. this is not a good thing. can't run a country bedridden.

It's not splitting hairs at all, I agree it's important. But as in all things, every time someone doesn't a thing, a thing it doesn't. This abstracted, make-it-distant position is basically the fourth option in the poll. It's trivial to say "power should be wielded by the good and competent", how to get there at the very least involves a person building their wealth/pedigree/social connections/media image/expertise/relative anonymity/clear mind at the expense of staying the same.

i agree, but it's more... this is kinda rephrasing what you say here, but... to me it's about securing structures that enable competent people to build their wealth/pedigree/etc. yes. but it doesn't make it an imperative. some people will work for the latter anyways; it's not a moral imperative, but a fact of (some) human behavior that people work for power. so it's more a premise of behavior that we can then make a moral judgment about how to handle. if people did not seek and project power, there'd be less need to prevent bad power from being sought and projected. moral imperatives, to me, are how we handle our being in the world, which of our choices are ideal to do. that we grow food is a fact of life, morality comes into question when we ask how to do it.

that said, it's all very abstract. if we move into the concrete and say, for example, that you see someone getting beat up. i will abandon all qualms of morality then and make sure, somehow, that the victim is safe. it's just that phrasing the gain of power as good... as an imperative... no. if you're yourself competent, well, maybe. but it's, to me, not about you (general, not personal) having power. it's about just and fruituous people having power. power as an internal premise for life's value is... somewhat dangerous. life's value is the value.

i feel i'm rambling.

edit: and for the record, seeing your last post: i understand where you're coming from in the thread's question, and i don't believe you have a small mind. the postmodernists spend decades discussing power, quite grimly, but understanding that power was necessary for a healthy society. presupposition of power in education for example.

 

[sophie]

Why so?

Because I’m a communist

 

[Hygro]

you're very kind, but i don't trust my own judgment well enough for this. also even if what i think is good, i'm more of a thinker than a doer. this is not a good thing. can't run a country bedridden.

i agree, but it's more... this is kinda rephrasing what you say here, but... to me it's about securing structures that enable competent people to build their wealth/pedigree/etc. yes. but it doesn't make it an imperative. some people will work for the latter anyways; it's not a moral imperative, but a fact of (some) human behavior that people work for power. so it's more a premise of behavior that we can then make a moral judgment about how to handle. if people did not seek and project power, there'd be less need to prevent bad power from being sought and projected. moral imperatives, to me, are how we handle our being in the world, which of our choices are ideal to do. that we grow food is a fact of life, morality comes into question when we ask how to do it.

that said, it's all very abstract. if we move into the concrete and say, for example, that you see someone getting beat up. i will abandon all qualms of morality then and make sure, somehow, that the victim is safe. it's just that phrasing the gain of power as good... as an imperative... no. if you're yourself competent, well, maybe. but it's, to me, not about you (general, not personal) having power. it's about just and fruituous people having power. power as an internal premise for life's value is... somewhat dangerous. life's value is the value.

i feel i'm rambling.

edit: and for the record, seeing your last post: i understand where you're coming from in the thread's question, and i don't believe you have a small mind. the postmodernists spend decades discussing power, quite grimly, but understanding that power was necessary for a healthy society. presupposition of power in education for example.

I used to be bedridden, obviously there's going to be personal limitations for everyone, with energy or animus (the older, positive defintion– ánimo en español) being the first currency. The coffee I drank and the 5mg of adderall I took today, and the chair I sit in for work, probably not the best for my cardiovascular longevity but necessary for my impact.

If we de-abstract energy from one unit to a tripod of 3 wellness legs, cognitive, emotional, and physical, it becomes apparent that with limited leg length, you can tip over to attempt a desired height. "Just do it" only works when you have an untapped "do", something the mainstream is slowly learning as chronic illnesses of all kinds mount.

But I hope you don't fear minor distortions of character and imperfections if you can boost your activity levels, if and as things change for the better!

Because I’m a communist

Surely personal safety just means more self-sacrifice (time to ensure a mix of security, popularity, and anonymity) and limitations to direct Garibaldi-style charge the hill strategy, leading to a "yes". Something slower and more collaborative, but still requiring your personal effect. I take your no you mean "I won't" rather than "I shan't".

Unless you mean something different? Like, the best thing you can do as a communist is patiently wait for everyone else's actions to not be influenced directly by a communist?

 

[Angst]

I used to be bedridden, obviously there's going to be personal limitations for everyone, with energy or animus (the older, positive defintion– ánimo en español) being the first currency. The coffee I drank and the 5mg of adderall I took today, and the chair I sit in for work, probably not the best for my cardiovascular longevity but necessary for my impact.

If we de-abstract energy from one unit to a tripod of 3 wellness legs, cognitive, emotional, and physical, it becomes apparent that with limited leg length, you can tip over to attempt a desired height. "Just do it" only works when you have an untapped "do", something the mainstream is slowly learning as chronic illnesses of all kinds mount.

But I hope you don't fear minor distortions of character and imperfections if you can boost your activity levels, if and as things change for the better!

you're very kind, it makes a lot of sense. i'm working on it. currently some different options of treatment lined up. will take a few years, but there's light at the end of the tunnel. i haven't given up.

i just shouldn't be running anything here. x)

 

[sophie]

I mean that the best thing I can do with my time is work towards building a we that will be able to overthrow the existing order.

An individual - even a talented, virtuous, and well-intentioned one - cannot liberate the proletariat or abolish the classes. The people must liberate themselves through themselves, and they must do so as a single self-conscious body, not as one great person at the head of a host of followers. Wishing to be the hero in this story is misguided in the extreme.

 

[Lexicus]

I think it's at best very dangerous to be so certain of your righteousness that you believe exercising power over others is an obligation.

 

[Hygro]

I mean that the best thing I can do with my time is work towards building a we that will be able to overthrow the existing order.

An individual - even a talented, virtuous, and well-intentioned one - cannot liberate the proletariat or abolish the classes. The people must liberate themselves through themselves, and they must do so as a single self-conscious body, not as one great person at the head of a host of followers. Wishing to be the hero in this story is misguided in the extreme.

Sounds statistically impossible. The spontaneous self realization as a non-entity by all entities without example?

I think it's at best very dangerous to be so certain of your righteousness that you believe exercising power over others is an obligation.

Power exists, others have it, and you are already certain so many of them are wrong, am I not correct?

 

[Lexicus]

Power exists, others have it, and you are already certain so many of them are wrong, am I not correct?

Of course, but it doesn't follow that I am so sure that my own ideas are right that I feel obligated to gain power to implement them. I mean, I do think I'm right and I'm not opposed to holding or pursuing power, necessarily, but I hope I don't ever become so sure of myself that I believe it's my duty to impose my vision on everyone else. It seems to me that it is a very short trip from there to committing all sorts of atrocities.

I also agree with what schlaufuchs is saying as far as the individual vs collective exercise of power.

The spontaneous self realization as a non-entity by all entities without example?

I think the response here is something like: Individuals cannot spontaneously liberate themselves as individuals, so this question makes no sense. "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" or something

 

[Hygro]

Of course, but it doesn't follow that I am so sure that my own ideas are right that I feel obligated to gain power to implement them. I mean, I do think I'm right and I'm not opposed to holding or pursuing power, necessarily, but I hope I don't ever become so sure of myself that I believe it's my duty to impose my vision on everyone else. It seems to me that it is a very short trip from there to committing all sorts of atrocities.

I also agree with what schlaufuchs is saying as far as the individual vs collective exercise of power.

You mean is there some moral imperative to rule over people because you claim to know what is best for them? No, of course not.

That's not what I mean. I hope you didn't interpret the thread's boundaries as defined by a mind that small.

​

I think the response here is something like: Individuals cannot spontaneously liberate themselves as individuals, so this question makes no sense. "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" or something

So just wait until the dice rolls long enough that everyone at once does at it once making it a group emergence?

Or is there something to chip away at, and entice others to chip along with you?

 

[Narz]

People are less ignorant than ever

You sure about that? As far as I can see access to more information has allowed charlatans more power (certainly many are more educated than they could otherwise be but most are simply more distracted)

The people must liberate themselves through themselves, and they must do so as a single self-conscious body, not as one great person at the head of a host of followers

That's not happened anywhere @ anytime. Even an ant colony has a queen. An organization w/o a leader will soon be a disorganization.

 

[Hygro]

You sure about that? As far as I can see access to more information has allowed charlatans more power (certainly many are more educated than they could otherwise be but most are simply more distracted)

Isn't this basically what I said?

 

[Lexicus]

So just wait until the dice rolls long enough that everyone at once does at it once making it a group emergence?

Or is there something to chip away at, and entice others to chip along with you?

Successful organizing does not look to me very much like pursuing or accumulating power as an individual.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not happened anywhere @ anytime. Even an ant colony has a queen. An organization w/o a leader will soon be a disorganization.

"The fuhrerprinzip is good because ants" ranks right up there with "incels are right because lobsters"

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it's at best very dangerous to be so certain of your righteousness that you believe exercising power over others is an obligation.

The obligation is not the same thing as certain righteousness. That's a broken frame.

Call it fatherhood, if you must. There are a lot of conditionals, there. And many obligations to the exercise of power.