: You've persuasively made the case that job rotation would prevent Stalinist / Maoist repression from ever existing again, because represwion is the tool of a bureacuractic elite intent on preserving their power, and if jobs are rotated, then no one will be foolish enough to start behaving abdly, because they lknow they'll get screwed when they're out of power again. Or something like that. Is that correct?I said job rotation would defeat bureaucratic centralism. But: job rotation itself IS NOT socialism. Socialism is much more. Public ownership of the means of production, a planned economy, the product of labor owned by the workers---those are other important components.
: Some of the worst crimes in the history of Maoist China were committed, not in the name of 'bureaurcatic centralism', but what they called 'democratic mass rule'...
Changing the name of something doesn't change something. Those kids you mentioned were acting on direct or indirect orders of a bureaucracy---or, if they were acting independently, the bureaucracy supported them by not intervening.
: How would your society prevent problems like this from arising?
I wouldn't 'solve' it, society would. I do think that public ownership of the means of production, production for need, and the end of alienated labor---in conjunction with the abolition of bureacracy (social division of labor) would would do much to prevent such abuses. If not, then society---NOT a minority---will act to punish such behavior as it sees fit.
: A power holder need not hold power for a long time to do a lot of damage. Pol Pot, after all, killed a sixth of his population in three years. And it's not always the power holders who kill people, either. Don't you think the only way to prevent these problems is to recorgnize absolute rights and morality.
You forget that Pol Pot had a monopoly on 'absolute rights and morality,' NJ.
None.
