Positions can be abused. A mechanic can loosen bolts and cause mass destruction. A nurse can administer lethal dosages of medicine. These are not all distinct classes, though, but subsections of broader classes, that class typically being the proletariat. Classes have similar class interests, this is what binds them as a class, administrators in socialism also benefit from continued collectivization and improvements in production and distribution. Only the proletariat as a ruling class truly can abolish class as such, as their shared interests are the collectivization of production and distribution. This is Marxism.
Not necessarily, a mechanic could make some truly disastrous abuses at a nuclear power plant. However, you’re still running into the Bordigist error of fearing the potential for problems over presenting a better solution, and using that potential as a reason to not support the real.
When I’m analyzing existing systems, I can do so theoretically or based on testimony. Testimony can be false, but if it meets ones theoretical expectations, should be considered. The notion that we should look to existing systems instead of inventing new ones is odd coming from a communist, as this is the most common basis for arguments I hear from proponents of political economy as it were. Transforming the social fabric is going to take a little creative problem solving. If you’re interested in a positive argument: https://lemmy.ml/post/46147233/25310663
Positions can be abused. A mechanic can loosen bolts and cause mass destruction. A nurse can administer lethal dosages of medicine. These are not all distinct classes, though, but subsections of broader classes, that class typically being the proletariat. Classes have similar class interests, this is what binds them as a class, administrators in socialism also benefit from continued collectivization and improvements in production and distribution. Only the proletariat as a ruling class truly can abolish class as such, as their shared interests are the collectivization of production and distribution. This is Marxism.
Do you acknowledge at the very least that the potential for abuse in these positions is less than the position of administrator?
Not necessarily, a mechanic could make some truly disastrous abuses at a nuclear power plant. However, you’re still running into the Bordigist error of fearing the potential for problems over presenting a better solution, and using that potential as a reason to not support the real.
When I’m analyzing existing systems, I can do so theoretically or based on testimony. Testimony can be false, but if it meets ones theoretical expectations, should be considered. The notion that we should look to existing systems instead of inventing new ones is odd coming from a communist, as this is the most common basis for arguments I hear from proponents of political economy as it were. Transforming the social fabric is going to take a little creative problem solving. If you’re interested in a positive argument: https://lemmy.ml/post/46147233/25310663