The author Domenico Losurdo uses the term mutual demystification a lot, especially in Liberalism - a counter history. When two parties accuse each other of being hypocrites, it often ends up showing that they both are.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to deny the existence of corruption or abuse of power, but I think the corrupting influence of power is often used to justify in retrospect the acts of people put into power to do exactly that.
It might sound pedantic to say that CEOs or state officials aren’t really “corrupt”, because they rarely ever intend to represent the interests of the workforce or population, but really it’s a total inversion of causality. They don’t “betray” because they got in power, they got in power to “betray”.
On an interesting sidenote, it also goes against the common misconception that any form of authority ultimately leads to corruption, since those same CEOs and officials seem to stay pretty loyal.
Our economy is organized around exploitation, I understand the point that someone in power might use this power for their own good if unchecked, but in an economy of exploitation like ours, power is organized around said exploitation.
The worst of people go to the top not because bad people inherently do (or as you say, because power incentivizes bad action) but because this system is structured around exploitation, being ruthless and clamping down as hard as possible on those below you.
I don’t believe that power generally incentivizes bad action. Outside of the structure of a company or a capitalist state, it’s merely a factor to account for, like any other conflict or human element (and is usually handled fairly expeditiously).
In my experience in non profit organizations, usual “human issues” are of course presents, but corruption and power abuse only ever rear their heads when the rubber hit the profit road.
This confusion also isn’t a mistake, it’s a misdirection, perpetually maintained to depict the constant corruption of states and companies worldwide as a mere “unfortunate reality” of human organization, while minimizing scrutiny of the structures this corruption exists in. When Trump, Elon and friends are waging a crusade against corruption, you would think this misdirection is at its absolute stretching limit, but somehow it still holds strong even (and especially) in those critical of them.
Sorry for stupidly long reply, in a word, I think we shouldn’t mistake “profit incentive”, for “power incentive”.
Well I get your point and I do agree with your logic. Your correct about capitalism and our system centered around exploitation for profit.
The reason I generalize is because, although capitalism makes it its center, personal gain and profit still exist nonetheless.
Exploitation isn’t as new as capitalism, peasants under their king for instance was a major part of our history.
To me the more power an individual can get, the more he can serve himself, profit and exploit others. I believe this is the rule rather than the exception.
A lesser power would more easily lead to good actions because other incentives would compete with the smaller profit from your power. Hence why non profit organization are more free from corruption. As it’s true for mayor compared to president for instance.
(This is why democracy is such an appealing concept, it divide power in such a way that no one as enough for corruption to exist.)
P.S. I’m ok with long reply, I hope you’re good with that too…
The author Domenico Losurdo uses the term mutual demystification a lot, especially in Liberalism - a counter history. When two parties accuse each other of being hypocrites, it often ends up showing that they both are.
I’d like to point out that I’m european, not american - this is the opposite of calling each other hypocrites.
When people are not brain dead by media, both in the US and EU we know all of our problems comes from our own government and fat CEOs.
Foreigners are just one of the many scapegoats they put the blame on.
What it reminds me of is Greeks and then Romans calling them barbarian, from barbar meaning foreigners. This isn’t new…
The problem always was power and the unfit nature of human beings to possess it.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to deny the existence of corruption or abuse of power, but I think the corrupting influence of power is often used to justify in retrospect the acts of people put into power to do exactly that. It might sound pedantic to say that CEOs or state officials aren’t really “corrupt”, because they rarely ever intend to represent the interests of the workforce or population, but really it’s a total inversion of causality. They don’t “betray” because they got in power, they got in power to “betray”.
On an interesting sidenote, it also goes against the common misconception that any form of authority ultimately leads to corruption, since those same CEOs and officials seem to stay pretty loyal.
Exact, and I believe most forms of power incentives bad actions and the worse individual to take it.
Wich would entail it comes from our nature, dictating the properties of power.
Good actions done by CEOs or the ones being loyal seems to me is coming from another facet of us.
Our economy is organized around exploitation, I understand the point that someone in power might use this power for their own good if unchecked, but in an economy of exploitation like ours, power is organized around said exploitation. The worst of people go to the top not because bad people inherently do (or as you say, because power incentivizes bad action) but because this system is structured around exploitation, being ruthless and clamping down as hard as possible on those below you.
I don’t believe that power generally incentivizes bad action. Outside of the structure of a company or a capitalist state, it’s merely a factor to account for, like any other conflict or human element (and is usually handled fairly expeditiously). In my experience in non profit organizations, usual “human issues” are of course presents, but corruption and power abuse only ever rear their heads when the rubber hit the profit road.
This confusion also isn’t a mistake, it’s a misdirection, perpetually maintained to depict the constant corruption of states and companies worldwide as a mere “unfortunate reality” of human organization, while minimizing scrutiny of the structures this corruption exists in. When Trump, Elon and friends are waging a crusade against corruption, you would think this misdirection is at its absolute stretching limit, but somehow it still holds strong even (and especially) in those critical of them.
Sorry for stupidly long reply, in a word, I think we shouldn’t mistake “profit incentive”, for “power incentive”.
Well I get your point and I do agree with your logic. Your correct about capitalism and our system centered around exploitation for profit.
The reason I generalize is because, although capitalism makes it its center, personal gain and profit still exist nonetheless.
Exploitation isn’t as new as capitalism, peasants under their king for instance was a major part of our history.
To me the more power an individual can get, the more he can serve himself, profit and exploit others. I believe this is the rule rather than the exception.
A lesser power would more easily lead to good actions because other incentives would compete with the smaller profit from your power. Hence why non profit organization are more free from corruption. As it’s true for mayor compared to president for instance.
(This is why democracy is such an appealing concept, it divide power in such a way that no one as enough for corruption to exist.)
P.S. I’m ok with long reply, I hope you’re good with that too…