In very small organization sizes it's possible but as people come and go eventually someone will get control to make decisions that put their interests or their connections interests ahead of the masses.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think it is possible

[+] Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee -7 points 3 days ago (3 children)

In what way does this graph say humans are not corrupt and taking advantage?

Even under communism the 1% had 4% of assets, that's not 1% of assets like true communism should be. That in and of itself proves corruption to me. The fact that the USSR fell and a handful of 1%ers got the majority of industries for pennies on the dollar is egregious corruption. None of this is a criticism of communism. This is criticizing the actions of individuals who decided to be corrupt.

It's just human nature. Some people call it "enlightened self interest" others call it nepotism, some call it survival of the fittest. Some call it gaming the system. In all cases it's the same problem. Sometimes things can go well for a while but on a scale of even just a hundred years when an organization has more than a couple hundred people it simply goes sideways.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Even under communism the 1% had 4% of assets, that’s not 1% of assets like true communism should be.

In the US, the top 1% has over 30%. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because a socialist state hadn’t yet reached some Platonic ideal doesn’t mean it should be thrown out with the bathwater. You can’t go from a decimated, war-ravaged, illiterate, feudal agrarian backwater to some socialist utopia overnight.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This graph does not say that no-one is corrupt, correct. It does however show that the soviet system had much less inequality than what came before (under the Tsar) and after (capitalism). This is an improvement. This graph does not prove corruption either. Some having more than others is not corruption.

The soviets did not reach communism, they were building socialism.

Under capitalism, the vast majority of people must labour, by getting a job... if they can, to get money to have a house, food, medicine, etc. They take actions in line with how capitalism functions, to the extent they are doing so to survive, this is "human nature", yes, but I don't think this is the way that you are using those words. Under socialism, you are guaranteed a job, housing, food, there is free healthcare, etc. The actions the same person would take under socialism are different. So what you call "human nature", but is just actions taken within context of capitalism, is not actually human nature.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago

Maybe in the context of an ideologically opposed global hegemony, you're right. Maybe we should do something about that.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think "it's human nature" is an excuse made by the ruling class to quell challenges to the system that benefits them.

Sociopathic hoarding and anti-social manipulation is an abberation that our system artificially elevates and rewards.

If we were culturally more hostile to attempts to rent out our lives and natural resources back to us, and didn't put zero-empathy profit hoarders on the front of magazines, things could be better.

I agree with you on group sizes though. When people are treated like hyper-specialized insects with ID numbers instead of identities, funneled into highly-specialized roles, every one a stranger to the other, something has gone horribly wrong.