This is more idealist than materialist. “Power” isn’t a real substance, it has no ability to “corrupt” people or turn them “evil.”

But you are suggesting we create organization structures with authority over others. Immeasurable or not, it has an effect on human behavior which cannot just be ignored.

People act in their own interests, and in capitalism profit is the driving factor. The capitalists at the top are the ones that best get the most profits by any means necessary, so the ones at the top are typically more morally bankrupt. It wasn’t that power corrupted them, but capitalism as a system selected for them.

And police organizations select for those who enjoy (or are at a bare minimum comfortable with) having power over others. The same goes for government structures.

That isn’t to say corruption doesn’t exist in socialism, it absolutely does, but that isn’t because of metaphysical powers of corruption.

I never said anything about this being a metaphysical effect. This is an effect in relation to human behavior, organization, and economic structure.

Further, as Dessalines said, socialist planning and administration is more collectivized, both by intention and by necessity. You physically couldn’t have a single person, or elite few, making all of the decisions in socialist society.

As I told Dessalines, it doesn’t have to be one person. A council, committee, or other group of people can always be incentivized to retain and accumulate power.

I’m not exactly sure what the question is, but if its that “power always corrupts”, this might be true for capitalist countries, which allow private ownership of capital, and creates a system that encourages and incentivizes accumulation of power.

I haven’t posed a question. And what I am trying to get at is that power itself incentivizes accumulation and retention of power.

then no one person can accumulate that much power,

It doesn’t have to be one person, a council, committee, or other group of people can always be incentivized to retain and accumulate power.

but by the socialist state who commands them to protect the people. Socialist states are going to be receptive to accusations of abuses, because that means they’re harming the people.

The PRC regularly attacks citizens and journalists that criticize their government.

See my response to Cowbee

I agree with everything you’ve said, except for the last sentence.

The basis of the state is class struggle, so to eliminate it you eliminate class.

thus elements like police are necessary to keep the proletariat in control and capitalists oppressed

That is the main basis, but it is not the only one, and police are a good example of it. More often than not police enjoy the power that their position gives them. The job itself attracts people who enjoy having power over others, and that’s not strictly a mechanism of classes existing.

The state backs up their power, and so they are influenced to protect the existence of the state. Anybody who commands the police will see the police as an extension of their power and will be similarly influenced.

Power corrupts and makes people want to retain power.

Reversal:

communist: I’m all for ending this oppressive system, but only if we do it with a state that will wither away

anarchist: So… by magic?