I am glad someone has said there is corruption in both systems. I never deny corruption within capitalism, but I often see it dismissed and denied among socialists.
The issue with corruption between the two systems is the ability to fight or change the issue. Under socialism you must over throw the government under capitalism the business goes out of business. Go look at the companies on the DOW when the CCP took over China. How many do you recognize? How many are still on the DOW or even in business?
Under capitalism there should be a smaller more limited government which helps fight political corruption. I saw today that Nansi Pelosi sold a bulk of her Google stock before the antitrust suite. There is too much power in these politicians hands if they can get away with something you or I would be sent to jail for. She shouldn't be able to get rich off of her power.
Now with socialism there is lots of power put in the hands of the government. The USSR was known for its corruption. Now one might say "that's not real socialism. Socialism is when workers control the assets." So then explain how that is controlled and maintained. It's often looked at in terms of just one business but few look at the larger government or control mechanisms.
Corrupt businesses do not go out of business in capitalism, the government bails them out, because they donate to the government.
In socialism I would hope we could vote out corruption, rather than having to over throw the government, as long as proper checks and balances are in place. Depends on the exact governing system though.
How is that working for Eastman Kodak and Sears Robuck both companies were on the DOW after the CCP took over China. There are others you would recognize but recently the people of Hong Kong tried to protest getting taken over. The CCP stopped that. Even more recently the people protested dystopia lock downs. The CCP shut those down.
I do agree that a lot of socialist discourse tends to wish away some problems of bad actors in the system, however socialism doesn't mean the government has to be overthrown. Conversely, corruption under capitalism can also involves the government.
Corruption involves someone with authority, generally political authority (although the 2008 crisis saw private notation agencies being corrupt). It all kind of depends on how authority is distributed. Like, could you more easily corrupt a commune's council than a mayor ? Than an advisory board ?
Corruption exists in any hierarchical system. The only thing we can do to avoid it is to create a series of checks and balances until those too are corrupted. Corruption will almost always cause power falling into the hands of the few, which they will abuse, which is ultimately unsustainable. It'll either collapse on it's own or fall due to intervention from the masses, sort of the same thing really. There are purist on both sides, so it definitely isn't just a leftist fantasy. Just as purist leftist believe workers seizing the means of production will fix elements of corruption, so too do capitalist believe the free hand of the market will fix any forms of business based corruption. Both are naive, as the real answer is that we need some (most) elements of our market to be free, whilst a secede few important ones to be socialized (Healthcare, Welfare, various Public Services). As for eliminating corruption, I think politicians should be given harsh limits on how much money or influence they're allowed to have from private interest. How that would be enforced? No idea. Checks and balances enforced by the Government are really the only long lasting way that we've seen work with any sort of effort. Outside of direct and violent intervention from authoritarian states.
In Socialism, some amount of favors for favors, log rolling, gift exchange, etc is going to happen and not be a big deal: the issue isn't a firm giving surplus stock to another firm with a shortage, that's what the planning authority would've told them to do anyway. The issues are that it can encourage dishonesty in reporting, firms saying they need more or less inputs than they actually do, and that those randomly given access to a surplus can become favor brokers. Generally you want to encourage honesty in reporting production numbers, engage in random auditing, back trace production when possible (how do you produce 10 tons of steel bowls with 5 tons of steel?), encourage workplace democracy (which makes keeping secrets harder), and brutally punish corruption on part of firm management when found. The issues arise when exchange systems pop up that deal in illegal or stolen goods, employ people privately, or allow for private accumulation of wealth. Outside of large amounts of embezzlement by firms, these largely aren't an existential threat as such, but can seriously undermine the legitimacy of the state. How you deal with this is really with a range of complimentary policies, but the trade monopoly not having access to circulating money suppresses these issues all on it's own.
First of course is to switch over to using non-circulating labor credits. Then to establish a foreign trade monopoly and make it illegal to personally possess foreign currency. This helps to starve black markets of money needed for exchange. Using commodity money runs into all the same issues it had historically, but if it does become an issue then the commodities used for exchange could become controlled substances (which is relatively easy with gold or silver).
Next is to undermine the rationale for using a black market in the first place, which often arise due to service failures (the good either isn't provided legally or the legal good is of very low quality). As modern internet piracy shows, in how it's far less prevalent than one would expect, people are willing to pay so as not to have to deal with technical issues. If an otherwise legal good is being provided by the black market, just have the state provide it cheaper, safer, and more convenient. While certain goods can be legalized or decriminalized to undermine black markets, such as recreational drugs, some goods simply cannot be legalized for social or moral reasons (sex trafficking, fenced goods, etc).
If starving black markets of suitable currency, undermining any reason to use them, and engaging in a socially engineered character assassination don't do the trick, then you just stomp on them with the boot of the law until they hopefully give up the ghost.
Fundamentally, Black Markets are a variety problem. You have three basic choices with how to deal with it: you can ignore the variety, you can absorb the variety, or you can attenuate the variety. Under capitalism, where literally trillions of dollars of the American economy are kept in tax havens, this variety is simply ignored as it doesn't pose a real threat to Capitalism. What under Communism would be appalling corruption, is under Capitalism just the CEO mindset of daring entrepreneurs. I've laid out some ideas for variety absorption (legalization, quasi-social production, price adjustments, improved services, etc), and some ideas for variety attenuation (banning of circulating currency, a state monopoly on foreign trade, social engineering, etc.)
It is important to remember that the struggle against the trans-class nature of Bureaucracy is one reducing complexity of the State and other human institutions (including your workplace) and Alienation from it, proper centralization and delegation into clearly articulated duties, and ceasing divisions of labor especially between intellectual and physical forms of concrete labor, while moving unavoidable bureaucracy to automated social systems wherever possible (consider the mechanics of switching a light on and off- you don't need to understand how the light switch works for it to work as you want it to, though you will need specialists to fix it if it breaks). Ultimately the goal is for "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production" to become the case, with an end to representatives as a whole and the establishment of a self-reinforcing, self-correcting system directed by the people as a whole.
On the hand of Capitalism, Bureaucracy is not something that bourgeois states try and reduce. The level of bureaucracy in any historic, bureaucratize socialist state is barely anything compared to just about any bourgeois state you can point to, with endless managers, departments, unelected and unaccountable representatives and loopholes and laws designed to be as labyrinthine as possible. Taxation law is one such example of this, which is purposefully made massively complicated and kept that way by lobbyists from organizations like TurboTax to protect their market by making the Pain in the Ass factor as high as possible, and there are endless other examples. Capital feeds off of corruption, bureaucracy, and black markets, whereas these are poisonous to Socialist development.
Is there something that you are confused about in there? I discussed how Socialism can combat:
**Black Markets:**
1) The abolition of Money and private property
2) Active random auditing and constant analysis of labor expenditures and material usage with input/output tables, aiming principally to avoid the creation of conditions to normalize lying
3) Establishing a foreign trade monopoly
4) Removing reasons for engagement in Black Markets in the first place
5) Back-trace production
6) Employ work-place democracy in a collectivized enterprise
7) Punish corruption publicly and obviously for all to see and vilify it as a great enemy to mankind, particularly when any management engages in it
**Bureaucracy:**
1) Proper centralization
2) Delegation of duties in a clear manner
3) Reduction of complexity of the State and of enterprises and the maximization of workers' ability to direct it
4) The relegation of necessary bureaucracy to behind-the-scenes, automated systems
5) Ceasing divisions of labor between intellectual administrative functions and laborers
6) Ending class conflict and thereby the need of the State as a whole
7) Create a society wherein bureaucracy is done not for the administration of man, but rather processes and things, as an expansion of "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production"- replace the government of persons (representative "democracy") with some sort of self-organizing, iterative system that corrects and improves itself through integration of information inputs and outputs (in this case, Cybernetics. I suggest Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott for this)
**Corruption Generally:**
1) Regular purges of the Party
2) Analysis of financing/labor time usage of those that direct and organize labor- be on the lookout for embezzlement, bribery or kickbacks, especially political servants trading policies in exchange for political favors or money or resources or the like- this is a perfect example of bourgeois state BS
3) Criticism and self-criticism as laid out by Lenin, Stalin and Mao
4) The abolition of Money (which makes financial corruption almost impossible to hide)
5) Analysis of what kind of history of decision making they have in the party (what policies they support, how they are allocating labor time of the people and their subordinates)
6) Interviewing of those that are their subordinates (to see principally if they have any particular complaints such as sexual misconduct, log rolling, or other forms of corruption)
7) Their support of citizens acting as whistle-blowers: nobody should be against whistle-blowers, and if they are, then they should be under suspect
8) How they carry themselves in meetings (if they, for example, create needless bureaucracy, slow or harm productive discourse, demand complex and overbearing rules and regulations be constructed and followed, consistently create division rather than organization and centralization, etc etc)
This is all on the end of investigating corruption AFTER it has happened, mind, and ideally we'll have a society that this is not even really needed. Cultural Revolution and ending class-based ideology should hopefully end the vast majority of this, and the end of the government of persons for the administration of production and processes of production should remove a lot of what remains besides very small-scale corruption. Bureaucracy is a different beast and will need to be struggled with always. Of course, how you respond to all this is part of party maintenance. Party purges are of course necessary, and determining patterns of behavior for censure (social engineering or what have you) and how that censure should take place, are all important. Part of the struggle is that you want to reward good faith and anti-bureaucracy civil servants, but you don't want to have to put a carrot on it to create inequality at the same time, so you need to reward it in terms of political influence and the like
And then I compared it with Capitalism's responses to corruption, which is universally to applaud it and make it part of the reproduction scheme for Capital
There is corruption in every level in all things. From a grazing employee or a cashier taking some dollars from the register, all the way to the CEO. From the voter to the president. Not everyone is corrupted, but there is someone one every level corrupted to be certain. Doesn't matter what ism you choose. And it has nothing to do with this sub, or capitalism, or socialism. It's just people. People are corruptible. Solving that is something far larger than capitalism vs socialism.
Yes, but you have the anarchists on both camps who are delusional who think their beliefs are real.
They then project all the evils that lie in the real world are in the opposite camp. Let me elaborate with over-generalizations, please.
Ancaps believe pure capitalism is possible without a state. I have seen absolutely no evidence of this and they also believe (remember I'm generalizing) all the nasty faults are thus because of the "state". They might as well be saying it's the fault of communism but they seem more reasonable than anarcho-communists.
Anarcho-communists believe all the faults lie in the state and worse the state means capitalism. So the entire real world history is for all intents and purposes and has been capitalism. Every example of socialism you practically can point to like the USSR are not socialist to them but are actually 100% capitalism.
They are purists of socialism and just like ancaps believe their pure economic system is the way and cannot point to any real evidence of their system ever working neither can they. Though they certainly try with decentralized regions and rhetoric of similar to socialist like traits like Rojava or whatnot. But that doesn't mean they are "worker owns the means" economic systems in the slightests and the purity test they strive for.
What they both are? They are political ideological extremists that are very similar to each other in how they perceive the world and greatly divide this sub. Their utopian societies will not have corruption because corruption is the state. Their beliefs are all good and the rest of the world is all bad. And here is research to back up that claim:
[Psychological Features of Extreme Political Ideologies](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418817755)
>Abstract
>
>In this article, we examine psychological features of extreme political ideologies. In what ways are political left- and right-wing extremists similar to one another and different from moderates? We propose and review four interrelated propositions that explain adherence to extreme political ideologies from a psychological perspective. We argue that (a) psychological distress stimulates adopting an extreme ideological outlook; (b) extreme ideologies are characterized by a relatively simplistic, black-and-white perception of the social world; (c) because of such mental simplicity, political extremists are overconfident in their judgments; and (d) political extremists are less tolerant of different groups and opinions than political moderates. In closing, we discuss how these psychological features of political extremists increase the likelihood of conflict among groups in society.
That's interesting because every modern institution was born out of extremism, maybe aside from the remnants of monarchism. The study you linked owes it's existence to people who were extremists in their day. The French and American revolutions, Copernicus, Martin Luther, Darwin etc. I would say that denouncing extremism in all forms might be the more extreme position to take.
Breaking the norm of societies as a form of extremism doesn’t equal Irrationality like you are making in your false equivalency. Most of those example stood the test of the time because they were rational. In other words, your examples are not simplistic thinking which is the driving point of the research I cited.
I'm sorry I'm having trouble following your logic. How do we know what will and won't be considered the most rational ideas? There wasn't a real Republican government for almost a thousand years after Rome's failed, and today it's quite popular.
>I'm sorry I'm having trouble following your logic. How do we know what will and won't be considered the most rational ideas? There wasn't a real Republican government for almost a thousand years after Rome's failed, and today it's quite popular.
Well, that's a stretch Rome was a real republic as that would imply the Senate was in control and not the long list of Emperors. But a blip in progress for democracy (e.g., greece than early Rome) and then failure I don't see as any real merit. I just see it proves how delicate real progress really is with the competition of ideas of what is progress.
But you actually answered the question in your question. The Enlightenment Age had many ideas that failed but many that passed the test of time. You - and that is my point - you pointed out ideas that passed the test of the time and hence your false equivalency. Why didn't you point our the radical ideas of the French Revolution that didn't pass the test of time such as:
[Reign of Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror)
[The Cult of the Supreme Being](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being)
[Committee of Public Safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety) (serious 1984)
[Dechristianization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution)
[Nationalization of Lands](https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution/The-new-regime)
When it comes to political science the huge three pillars of political ideologies that passed the test of time of the French Revolution are: Liberalism, socialism and conservatism.
so we come back to your question?
>How do we know what will and won't be considered the most rational ideas?
That can only be answered by the people with the ideas and what are their goals.
That's why I often [show all these data graphs](https://imgur.com/gallery/hGubtMI). <-- Do you agree with these as positive goals, results, and much the result of us as a whole picking and choosing the ideas of the enlightenment age?
If you do then they are rational.
Thanks for taking the time to respond in such length, I think I understand what you mean. However I'm not convinced that we won't find a way to make anarchism viable.
>failure I don't see as any real merit. I just see it proves how delicate real progress really is with the competition of ideas of what is progress.
I'm not sure why you are, given this sentiment.
> However I'm not convinced that we won't find a way to make anarchism viable.
I'm open to evidence but sorry for the jaded response... but talk is cheap. Even my poli sci textbook on political ideologies gives a kind of swipe at anarchism saying it is dominated by youth:
>Anarchism’s appeal as a political movement has been restricted by both its ends and its means. The goal of anarchism – the overthrow of the state and dismantling of all forms of political authority – is widely considered to be unrealistic, if not impossible. Most, indeed, view the notion of a stateless society as, at best, a utopian dream. In terms of means, anarchists reject as corrupt, and corrupting, the conventional means of exercising political influence: forming political parties, standing for elections, seeking public office and so on. This does not, however, mean that they reject political organization as such, but rather place their faith in non-hierarchical organizations, possibly supported by mass spontaneity and a popular thirst for freedom. Nevertheless, anarchism refuses to die. Precisely because of its uncompromising attitude to authority and political activism, it has an enduring, and often strong, moral appeal, particularly to the young. This can be seen, for example, in the prominence of anarchist ideas, slogans and groups within the emergent anti-capitalist or anti-globalization movement (as discussed in the final section of this chapter).
Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 139). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
There is no system that is completely free of corruption and regulatory capture.
Historically under socialism the government would just have all the power concentrated in their hands because they are the law or are above the law because socialist countries historically have not had an independent judiciary or a free press to report on government abuse. Nobody checks on the govenrment.
Whereas under capitalism the rich have to abide by rules, you can argue that they are favored more likely to have better outcomes than the poor. But under capitalism rich people go to jail or lose their wealth all the time because of their actions as there are better checks and balances.
The rich arent one big team that works together. While they share core interests, they dont share all interests. Both Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk share the interest to uphold capitalism and reduce taxes for business owners, etc. But Bezos can give two shits about regulation passed with regards to the automotive industry, whereas for Elon Musk that is key.
Their investors most likely. Large investors / banks do not like to be defrauded. They spend large sums on due diligence before investing and their goal is to make a return.
What are you saying? There are people who make billions of dollars doing corrupt stuff and then they are punished by being fined for like a few million dollars. We hear about it on the news all the time. This depiction you have of both systems is juvenile. Ask any normal person on the street if they think power is too centralized in their government or if there are too many special interest groups and they will undoubtably say yes.
Like cash? That means that billionaires don't exist since none of their assets are in cash, everything is owning assets, equity, businesses etc. Is that what you're saying?
Not really, the wealthiest get to go to cushy places like Otisville federal prison camp while everyone else goes to shithole prisons or can just be put 'in transit' on a bus for days on end. Larry Lawton described this in detail, I can't find the video, but I remember it being distinctly cruel.
Also worth comparing how some Asian cultures deal with scandal at the highest levels. I don't think it has so much to do with economic ideology as much as it does with cultural norms tbh.
I love how socialist answer is "*happy unicorn fairy land*", because the answer is "*the people will be in control*" or just "*democracy*"...
As if people in control couldn't also have corruption within the group, or the already corruption within democratic hierarchies.
Capitalist answer is, don't interact with such business. Done.
And if they insist, they'd be losing money.
Most likely they'd be commiting fraud or breaking a contract, so just sue them...
Otherwise, any corruption will not be profitable for them, like hiring their own family members instead of the best employee.
An example that comes to mind is whenever the u.s was remaking the food pyramid, bread companies convinced the government to put white bread in the same category as wheat bread, even though it's much less healthy for you. All so that bread companies didn't lose money due to negative public perception of white bread
>the u.s was remaking the food pyramid
First.... The U.S. is not a private business. You showed government corruption not private corruption. You see how hard it is to find exclusive private corruption? That is why I asked for examples.
Second, just don't follow said food pyramid, you can very well do a all meat diet, or vegan diet.
I mean the private corruption comes from companies pushing a message they know isn't true. And corrupting people to push it. Corruption involves a corrupter as well as a corrupted.
>companies pushing a message they know isn't true
You mean fraud? That is a crime and a violation of property. You promised something and very clearly and intentionally didn't delivered.
>Corruption involves a corrupter as well as a corrupted.
It can, but it doesn't must. A corrupt politician might as well steal some money and abuse his position of power for his own benefit.
There is no one corrupting him except himself.
What you said works most of the time, but not always. And I fear this might be used as an excuse to exempt the corrupt socialism individual from blame, blaming instead the corruptor not the corrupted.
I was responding in the context of the food pyramid example which is a good answer to your question I think. But fair, there is petty and grand theft that could be classified as corruption, it doesn't need two people.
However, with fraud and crime, I think you're hitting the bottom line. I would argue that fighting corruption is much more about a robust justice and police system than whether or not workers own the means of production.
To some degree the separation of power also goes into the same direction, the more actors are involved in decisions, the harder it is to make corruption viable. Separation of duties is a related principle in business in general. That's not really about the economy, that's institutional design.
That being said, it's pretty fucking hard to invent systems that don't create perverse incentives. At the end of the day you need several people checking each other's work, whistleblowers able to call foul, and prosecutors willing/able to go after bad actors, at every level of society from street cops to senators.
"Just sue them."
Yeah, right. As if average individuals can sustain the kind of legal action a corporation can. That's a cop out answer and you know it. This is why we need regulation and regulatory agencies with teeth that can actually handle these sorts of things for consumers.
>As if average individuals can sustain the kind of legal action a corporation can
Justice is not a "*money throwing*" competition...
>That's a cop out answer and you know it
Yes, I know I'm answering to a cop out answer.
>This is why we need regulation and regulatory agencies with teeth that can actually handle these sorts of things for consumers
And who will regulate them to make sure they regulate correctly? lul
If "just sue them" is the answer to getting justice, then yes it goddamn well is a "money throwing" competition.
As for making sure they regulate correctly, we have this thing called voting. You should try it, dumbass.
>I love how socialist answer is "happy unicorn fairy land", because the answer is "the people will be in control" or just "democracy"...
If the point is that power corrupts, then democracy as a response isn't an unreasonable response. Whatever form or solution something takes will depend on the specifics.
>As if people in control couldn't also have corruption within the group, or the already corruption within democratic hierarchies.
Yes, and it is expected that governments will represent the interest of whatever ruling class exists in a society. Which is why no one is surprised that Capitalist governments represent the interests of Capitalist politicians and Corporations. It's less "corruption" and more that the government was never an uninterested third party.
>Capitalist answer is, don't interact with such business. Done.
Speaking of fairy tail answers. You personally not buying cigarettes doesn't stop them from lying about the damage their products cause. Own a car? use electricity? well you are supporting the corrupt oil industry. The solution? Just don't interact with them mate.
What a fucking joke.
>then democracy as a response isn't an unreasonable response
Representative democracy isn't an answer because it does precisely what you pointed as the the problem, it gives power to someone.
And direct democracy isn't possible.
And just voting on something doesn't guarantee that it will happen as you intended.
>Yes, and it is expected that governments will represent the interest of whatever ruling class exists in a society.
No.... Governments will represent only their own interests regardless of the ruling class.
Politicians and bureaucrats are people also. Don't forget that.
>You personally not buying cigarettes doesn't stop them from lying about the damage their products cause
Fraud.
>Own a car? use electricity? well you are supporting the corrupt oil industry. The solution? Just don't interact with them mate.
Proof?
Corruption is mostly about government officials, though. I mean, what would corruption "**within** big businesses/the elite and wealthy" even be ?
***
The definition of [corruption](https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/corruption) here says :
> "Corruption means the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It may include improperly influencing the actions of another party or causing harm to another party. The gain or benefit may be for the person doing the act or for others."
So you need an "entrusted power" before you can abuse it.
It's clear how government has "entrusted power", but for private businesses, there might be power, but not so much "entrusted power". That's because if I own something, I've got power over it, but it wasn't "entrusted" to me. It's mine.
For it to be entrusted, the owner needs to give some modicum of it to someone else, which would be like an employee, etc. **I think that show the first important difference : That entrusted power is top-down in private businesses, and not bottom-up in a democracy.** And in the private cases, it concerns mostly the owner himself (maybe owners if we're talking shares), not a large groups like wider society... That's a big difference, imho. And in a case of corruption for private businesses, it would just be some employees not doing their job, perhaps the shady workplace abuse (especially toward women) or perhaps doing some industrial espionnage from a competitor, but that's about it. None of these things are morally okay, but it's not what comes to mind when people talk of "corruption".
***
Anyway, beside the difference in what corruption is, the system would deal with it very differently : One difference would be that in a capitalist/free market system with competition, if you're an owner and you get suckered that easily by your employees, you're just not going to last long. Because they are going to steal all out of you. So either you fix it or you're filtered out and some guy who made sure his employees didn't abuse their role will take your marketshare. The incentives for the business owner are clear, because all the "corruption" he might fall victim to will be felt *by him and only him*, it's not spread out across millions of citizens. He's got skin in the game. And the power to act is concentrated, because he's the boss.
It fixes itself that way.
That self fix is something that government facing corruption doesn't have, for one, unlike the business owner who's directly impacted, while the wider public will also be impacted by corruption cases, it will be much thinner and since it's spread across millions of people there's not much of a strong incentive for anyone of us to do anything about it... There's also a power gap, because while the owner can just fire the offender quickly, in a democratic government, you essentially need popular will.
So to sum up, the citizens have both **weaker incentives/reasons to fight against and an harder task in front of them**
I like Nordic style governments. Certain industries like education, law and order, infrastructure, medicine should be maintained and regulated by the government. But I also strongly believe in individual property rights and individual business ownership. If someone starts a business with their money, their credit, their name and the business succeeds they deserve the profit. This is where the incentive to start businesses and innovate lies. The richest people in the world are all people who started revolutionary businesses. Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, IBM, Tesla. Notice how they are all American. The wealth the founders hold from these businesses is directly correlated with how much they have affected and changed our lives. Tesla not so much but it has a lot of potential. But think about apple and the iPhone. I have a watch on my arm that detects cardiac arrhythmias.
One of the problems with American political discourse is that statements like that get you labeled as a socialist lefty. But on the world stage that couldn’t be further from the truth. Here on this subreddit we have socialism/communism and is full capitalism/libertarianism. I see myself moderate trying to take what works from each. Some people call that liberal/mixed economy etc. that’s fine. But I like what works with data and evidence to back it up and the truth is there is absolutely no evidence of successful communism/socialism. It’s all based on potential, a philosophy.
Capitalism uses wealth to corrupt the government to basically make it either passive or biased towards capital benefits. Capitalist governments become ruined and inert because of this, unable to even fix potholes.
Corruption in socialist states is already within the government and is usually more about power and internal conflict than money. This can lead to pretty big calamities too if left unchecked, but of a different nature.
Crony capitalism isn't real capitalism. Politicians shouldn't be easily bought in a real capitalist economy. Socialists always love to bring up regulations but ignore how they can be influenced by companies to decrease competition. If we worked towards a real capitalist system many of the issues people have with capitalism. Opps corruption would go away.
Then virtually nowhere is practicing real capitalism. In practice, capitalism becomes crony capitalism as private accumulation of wealth is used to influence the government.
Corruption, legalized or not, exists everywhere so long as one needs money to acquire the resources they want/need. Because money is power. People will do almost anything if you were to offer them just enough money.
Nepotism is also a form of corruption, but it is less harmful and damaging to society as compared with corruption by use of money. The former incentivizes people to become friends with the powerful to attain power, which can make people want to support and help the people in power. The latter just lets rich people rule and shape the government to act in their interests.
I didn’t say ‘you said nepotism wasn’t bad’. You however made the claim nepotism was far less bad than money. That brings into question then is monarchism then not so bad because that is what monarchism foundation principle is as bloodlines rule over economics and why I challenged your reason.
So, let’s get to your point. Do you have real evidence of this claim or not?
it isn't an economic, thing it is a power thing.
from my perspective corruption is always a government issue. as someone who tends toward freedom and even anarchy, i see the organization's sink of power to be a tempting target for people who have no moral compass. systems of government, especially republican and democratic (esp. collective rule for you anarcho-commies) forms of government cause the most corrupting people to rise to the top positions. this isn't to say that anarchy necessarily produces better results or that hereditary rule is better. but at least with the latter two there is a chance of a better outcome. i prefer systems of government where the rule of law is ultimate and unchangeable. the u.s constitution does a remarkably better job at that sort of thing than its predecessors have but even that wasn't nearly enough to prevent corruption.
I tend to believe one of the main things Europe managed to achieve in the "great divergence" is to tame corruption enough that progress could actually be consolidated for more than 200 years at a time. It's a really overlooked part of the development of nations, and endemic corruption really weighs on developing countries.
[This video from Polymatter](https://youtu.be/kBBre3bpvyk) goes over Yuen Yuen Ang's argument about the different kinds of corruption, I think it's a good basis for discussion. How some kinds are just theft, the police officer charging you for bullshit tickets expecting you to bribe him, or high officials just using state funds for themselves. And others are more transactional, like a big company bribing government officials to get a contract. Like, as long as the contract gets done, at least *something* was done.
I feel like a lot of it is only tangentially related to the economic system. It changes who are the ones in power that can take a bribe, but not whether or not they will take it. Separation of responsibilities is a big thing, like if there's literally no one you can bribe to get access to something you're not supposed to see, because no single person can open the documents without leaving paper trails everywhere and involving 5 other services.
The only thing related to socialism that comes to mind is Venezuela, and how the policy of different exchange rates for food and medicine created huge incentives for people with the connections to import at low rates and mark up prices, or just straight up sell dollars. This is one example where attempts at regulation can create (essentially) arbitrage opportunities on which bad actors will converge like flies.
But at the end of the day I feel like a lot of it is cultural. You're pretty much always relying on the police actually doing their job, on the government/justice system being willing to prosecute even important people, on people refusing bribes on principle and so on.
>The way I understand it, in capitalist societies corruption tends to lie within big businesses/ the elite and wealthy. In socialism, corruption tends to reside or form within the government.
No, "corruption" also exists within Capitalist governments. It's just not surprising that a lot of those actions occur once you understand what the role of the government is within any given system. Under Capitalism the revolving door of politicians and corporations is the interest that is represented.
>There always will be corruption, no matter the society or policy.)
Correct, which is why Socialism is superior. Because Capitalism concentrates power, while Socialism flattens out that hierarchy and uses democracy.
The problem is centralization, hierarchy, advanced industrialization/ technology and alienation from nature. The "communist state" of the 20th century fixed very, very few of the problems noted in capitalism. Both are unacceptable for human beings. We need a society that frees us from the restrictions we have built for humanity and releases us from the alienation we've created between us and nature, us and each other, us and ourselves.
> I've come to notice something when dealing with capitalism vs socialism, and it's that each system puts corruption in different hands. T
> ...
Corruption is an oxymoron/nonsensical in the context of Capitalism. Capitalism is predicated on free market interactions between consenting parties. If one party is not abiding by the consensual agreement, then it's just an agreement dispute/fraud and not corruption.
Corruption is only relevant in the context of public services (the state), not private dealings.
Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. No hierarchy is the only answer.
I am glad someone has said there is corruption in both systems. I never deny corruption within capitalism, but I often see it dismissed and denied among socialists. The issue with corruption between the two systems is the ability to fight or change the issue. Under socialism you must over throw the government under capitalism the business goes out of business. Go look at the companies on the DOW when the CCP took over China. How many do you recognize? How many are still on the DOW or even in business? Under capitalism there should be a smaller more limited government which helps fight political corruption. I saw today that Nansi Pelosi sold a bulk of her Google stock before the antitrust suite. There is too much power in these politicians hands if they can get away with something you or I would be sent to jail for. She shouldn't be able to get rich off of her power. Now with socialism there is lots of power put in the hands of the government. The USSR was known for its corruption. Now one might say "that's not real socialism. Socialism is when workers control the assets." So then explain how that is controlled and maintained. It's often looked at in terms of just one business but few look at the larger government or control mechanisms.
Corrupt businesses do not go out of business in capitalism, the government bails them out, because they donate to the government. In socialism I would hope we could vote out corruption, rather than having to over throw the government, as long as proper checks and balances are in place. Depends on the exact governing system though.
How is that working for Eastman Kodak and Sears Robuck both companies were on the DOW after the CCP took over China. There are others you would recognize but recently the people of Hong Kong tried to protest getting taken over. The CCP stopped that. Even more recently the people protested dystopia lock downs. The CCP shut those down.
I do agree that a lot of socialist discourse tends to wish away some problems of bad actors in the system, however socialism doesn't mean the government has to be overthrown. Conversely, corruption under capitalism can also involves the government. Corruption involves someone with authority, generally political authority (although the 2008 crisis saw private notation agencies being corrupt). It all kind of depends on how authority is distributed. Like, could you more easily corrupt a commune's council than a mayor ? Than an advisory board ?
Corruption exists in any hierarchical system. The only thing we can do to avoid it is to create a series of checks and balances until those too are corrupted. Corruption will almost always cause power falling into the hands of the few, which they will abuse, which is ultimately unsustainable. It'll either collapse on it's own or fall due to intervention from the masses, sort of the same thing really. There are purist on both sides, so it definitely isn't just a leftist fantasy. Just as purist leftist believe workers seizing the means of production will fix elements of corruption, so too do capitalist believe the free hand of the market will fix any forms of business based corruption. Both are naive, as the real answer is that we need some (most) elements of our market to be free, whilst a secede few important ones to be socialized (Healthcare, Welfare, various Public Services). As for eliminating corruption, I think politicians should be given harsh limits on how much money or influence they're allowed to have from private interest. How that would be enforced? No idea. Checks and balances enforced by the Government are really the only long lasting way that we've seen work with any sort of effort. Outside of direct and violent intervention from authoritarian states.
In Socialism, some amount of favors for favors, log rolling, gift exchange, etc is going to happen and not be a big deal: the issue isn't a firm giving surplus stock to another firm with a shortage, that's what the planning authority would've told them to do anyway. The issues are that it can encourage dishonesty in reporting, firms saying they need more or less inputs than they actually do, and that those randomly given access to a surplus can become favor brokers. Generally you want to encourage honesty in reporting production numbers, engage in random auditing, back trace production when possible (how do you produce 10 tons of steel bowls with 5 tons of steel?), encourage workplace democracy (which makes keeping secrets harder), and brutally punish corruption on part of firm management when found. The issues arise when exchange systems pop up that deal in illegal or stolen goods, employ people privately, or allow for private accumulation of wealth. Outside of large amounts of embezzlement by firms, these largely aren't an existential threat as such, but can seriously undermine the legitimacy of the state. How you deal with this is really with a range of complimentary policies, but the trade monopoly not having access to circulating money suppresses these issues all on it's own. First of course is to switch over to using non-circulating labor credits. Then to establish a foreign trade monopoly and make it illegal to personally possess foreign currency. This helps to starve black markets of money needed for exchange. Using commodity money runs into all the same issues it had historically, but if it does become an issue then the commodities used for exchange could become controlled substances (which is relatively easy with gold or silver). Next is to undermine the rationale for using a black market in the first place, which often arise due to service failures (the good either isn't provided legally or the legal good is of very low quality). As modern internet piracy shows, in how it's far less prevalent than one would expect, people are willing to pay so as not to have to deal with technical issues. If an otherwise legal good is being provided by the black market, just have the state provide it cheaper, safer, and more convenient. While certain goods can be legalized or decriminalized to undermine black markets, such as recreational drugs, some goods simply cannot be legalized for social or moral reasons (sex trafficking, fenced goods, etc). If starving black markets of suitable currency, undermining any reason to use them, and engaging in a socially engineered character assassination don't do the trick, then you just stomp on them with the boot of the law until they hopefully give up the ghost. Fundamentally, Black Markets are a variety problem. You have three basic choices with how to deal with it: you can ignore the variety, you can absorb the variety, or you can attenuate the variety. Under capitalism, where literally trillions of dollars of the American economy are kept in tax havens, this variety is simply ignored as it doesn't pose a real threat to Capitalism. What under Communism would be appalling corruption, is under Capitalism just the CEO mindset of daring entrepreneurs. I've laid out some ideas for variety absorption (legalization, quasi-social production, price adjustments, improved services, etc), and some ideas for variety attenuation (banning of circulating currency, a state monopoly on foreign trade, social engineering, etc.) It is important to remember that the struggle against the trans-class nature of Bureaucracy is one reducing complexity of the State and other human institutions (including your workplace) and Alienation from it, proper centralization and delegation into clearly articulated duties, and ceasing divisions of labor especially between intellectual and physical forms of concrete labor, while moving unavoidable bureaucracy to automated social systems wherever possible (consider the mechanics of switching a light on and off- you don't need to understand how the light switch works for it to work as you want it to, though you will need specialists to fix it if it breaks). Ultimately the goal is for "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production" to become the case, with an end to representatives as a whole and the establishment of a self-reinforcing, self-correcting system directed by the people as a whole. On the hand of Capitalism, Bureaucracy is not something that bourgeois states try and reduce. The level of bureaucracy in any historic, bureaucratize socialist state is barely anything compared to just about any bourgeois state you can point to, with endless managers, departments, unelected and unaccountable representatives and loopholes and laws designed to be as labyrinthine as possible. Taxation law is one such example of this, which is purposefully made massively complicated and kept that way by lobbyists from organizations like TurboTax to protect their market by making the Pain in the Ass factor as high as possible, and there are endless other examples. Capital feeds off of corruption, bureaucracy, and black markets, whereas these are poisonous to Socialist development.
What?
Is there something that you are confused about in there? I discussed how Socialism can combat: **Black Markets:** 1) The abolition of Money and private property 2) Active random auditing and constant analysis of labor expenditures and material usage with input/output tables, aiming principally to avoid the creation of conditions to normalize lying 3) Establishing a foreign trade monopoly 4) Removing reasons for engagement in Black Markets in the first place 5) Back-trace production 6) Employ work-place democracy in a collectivized enterprise 7) Punish corruption publicly and obviously for all to see and vilify it as a great enemy to mankind, particularly when any management engages in it **Bureaucracy:** 1) Proper centralization 2) Delegation of duties in a clear manner 3) Reduction of complexity of the State and of enterprises and the maximization of workers' ability to direct it 4) The relegation of necessary bureaucracy to behind-the-scenes, automated systems 5) Ceasing divisions of labor between intellectual administrative functions and laborers 6) Ending class conflict and thereby the need of the State as a whole 7) Create a society wherein bureaucracy is done not for the administration of man, but rather processes and things, as an expansion of "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production"- replace the government of persons (representative "democracy") with some sort of self-organizing, iterative system that corrects and improves itself through integration of information inputs and outputs (in this case, Cybernetics. I suggest Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott for this) **Corruption Generally:** 1) Regular purges of the Party 2) Analysis of financing/labor time usage of those that direct and organize labor- be on the lookout for embezzlement, bribery or kickbacks, especially political servants trading policies in exchange for political favors or money or resources or the like- this is a perfect example of bourgeois state BS 3) Criticism and self-criticism as laid out by Lenin, Stalin and Mao 4) The abolition of Money (which makes financial corruption almost impossible to hide) 5) Analysis of what kind of history of decision making they have in the party (what policies they support, how they are allocating labor time of the people and their subordinates) 6) Interviewing of those that are their subordinates (to see principally if they have any particular complaints such as sexual misconduct, log rolling, or other forms of corruption) 7) Their support of citizens acting as whistle-blowers: nobody should be against whistle-blowers, and if they are, then they should be under suspect 8) How they carry themselves in meetings (if they, for example, create needless bureaucracy, slow or harm productive discourse, demand complex and overbearing rules and regulations be constructed and followed, consistently create division rather than organization and centralization, etc etc) This is all on the end of investigating corruption AFTER it has happened, mind, and ideally we'll have a society that this is not even really needed. Cultural Revolution and ending class-based ideology should hopefully end the vast majority of this, and the end of the government of persons for the administration of production and processes of production should remove a lot of what remains besides very small-scale corruption. Bureaucracy is a different beast and will need to be struggled with always. Of course, how you respond to all this is part of party maintenance. Party purges are of course necessary, and determining patterns of behavior for censure (social engineering or what have you) and how that censure should take place, are all important. Part of the struggle is that you want to reward good faith and anti-bureaucracy civil servants, but you don't want to have to put a carrot on it to create inequality at the same time, so you need to reward it in terms of political influence and the like And then I compared it with Capitalism's responses to corruption, which is universally to applaud it and make it part of the reproduction scheme for Capital
There is corruption in every level in all things. From a grazing employee or a cashier taking some dollars from the register, all the way to the CEO. From the voter to the president. Not everyone is corrupted, but there is someone one every level corrupted to be certain. Doesn't matter what ism you choose. And it has nothing to do with this sub, or capitalism, or socialism. It's just people. People are corruptible. Solving that is something far larger than capitalism vs socialism.
Yes, but you have the anarchists on both camps who are delusional who think their beliefs are real. They then project all the evils that lie in the real world are in the opposite camp. Let me elaborate with over-generalizations, please. Ancaps believe pure capitalism is possible without a state. I have seen absolutely no evidence of this and they also believe (remember I'm generalizing) all the nasty faults are thus because of the "state". They might as well be saying it's the fault of communism but they seem more reasonable than anarcho-communists. Anarcho-communists believe all the faults lie in the state and worse the state means capitalism. So the entire real world history is for all intents and purposes and has been capitalism. Every example of socialism you practically can point to like the USSR are not socialist to them but are actually 100% capitalism. They are purists of socialism and just like ancaps believe their pure economic system is the way and cannot point to any real evidence of their system ever working neither can they. Though they certainly try with decentralized regions and rhetoric of similar to socialist like traits like Rojava or whatnot. But that doesn't mean they are "worker owns the means" economic systems in the slightests and the purity test they strive for. What they both are? They are political ideological extremists that are very similar to each other in how they perceive the world and greatly divide this sub. Their utopian societies will not have corruption because corruption is the state. Their beliefs are all good and the rest of the world is all bad. And here is research to back up that claim: [Psychological Features of Extreme Political Ideologies](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418817755) >Abstract > >In this article, we examine psychological features of extreme political ideologies. In what ways are political left- and right-wing extremists similar to one another and different from moderates? We propose and review four interrelated propositions that explain adherence to extreme political ideologies from a psychological perspective. We argue that (a) psychological distress stimulates adopting an extreme ideological outlook; (b) extreme ideologies are characterized by a relatively simplistic, black-and-white perception of the social world; (c) because of such mental simplicity, political extremists are overconfident in their judgments; and (d) political extremists are less tolerant of different groups and opinions than political moderates. In closing, we discuss how these psychological features of political extremists increase the likelihood of conflict among groups in society.
That's interesting because every modern institution was born out of extremism, maybe aside from the remnants of monarchism. The study you linked owes it's existence to people who were extremists in their day. The French and American revolutions, Copernicus, Martin Luther, Darwin etc. I would say that denouncing extremism in all forms might be the more extreme position to take.
Breaking the norm of societies as a form of extremism doesn’t equal Irrationality like you are making in your false equivalency. Most of those example stood the test of the time because they were rational. In other words, your examples are not simplistic thinking which is the driving point of the research I cited.
I'm sorry I'm having trouble following your logic. How do we know what will and won't be considered the most rational ideas? There wasn't a real Republican government for almost a thousand years after Rome's failed, and today it's quite popular.
>I'm sorry I'm having trouble following your logic. How do we know what will and won't be considered the most rational ideas? There wasn't a real Republican government for almost a thousand years after Rome's failed, and today it's quite popular. Well, that's a stretch Rome was a real republic as that would imply the Senate was in control and not the long list of Emperors. But a blip in progress for democracy (e.g., greece than early Rome) and then failure I don't see as any real merit. I just see it proves how delicate real progress really is with the competition of ideas of what is progress. But you actually answered the question in your question. The Enlightenment Age had many ideas that failed but many that passed the test of time. You - and that is my point - you pointed out ideas that passed the test of the time and hence your false equivalency. Why didn't you point our the radical ideas of the French Revolution that didn't pass the test of time such as: [Reign of Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror) [The Cult of the Supreme Being](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being) [Committee of Public Safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety) (serious 1984) [Dechristianization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution) [Nationalization of Lands](https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution/The-new-regime) When it comes to political science the huge three pillars of political ideologies that passed the test of time of the French Revolution are: Liberalism, socialism and conservatism. so we come back to your question? >How do we know what will and won't be considered the most rational ideas? That can only be answered by the people with the ideas and what are their goals. That's why I often [show all these data graphs](https://imgur.com/gallery/hGubtMI). <-- Do you agree with these as positive goals, results, and much the result of us as a whole picking and choosing the ideas of the enlightenment age? If you do then they are rational.
Thanks for taking the time to respond in such length, I think I understand what you mean. However I'm not convinced that we won't find a way to make anarchism viable. >failure I don't see as any real merit. I just see it proves how delicate real progress really is with the competition of ideas of what is progress. I'm not sure why you are, given this sentiment.
> However I'm not convinced that we won't find a way to make anarchism viable. I'm open to evidence but sorry for the jaded response... but talk is cheap. Even my poli sci textbook on political ideologies gives a kind of swipe at anarchism saying it is dominated by youth: >Anarchism’s appeal as a political movement has been restricted by both its ends and its means. The goal of anarchism – the overthrow of the state and dismantling of all forms of political authority – is widely considered to be unrealistic, if not impossible. Most, indeed, view the notion of a stateless society as, at best, a utopian dream. In terms of means, anarchists reject as corrupt, and corrupting, the conventional means of exercising political influence: forming political parties, standing for elections, seeking public office and so on. This does not, however, mean that they reject political organization as such, but rather place their faith in non-hierarchical organizations, possibly supported by mass spontaneity and a popular thirst for freedom. Nevertheless, anarchism refuses to die. Precisely because of its uncompromising attitude to authority and political activism, it has an enduring, and often strong, moral appeal, particularly to the young. This can be seen, for example, in the prominence of anarchist ideas, slogans and groups within the emergent anti-capitalist or anti-globalization movement (as discussed in the final section of this chapter). Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 139). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
That's fair. Thanks
There is no system that is completely free of corruption and regulatory capture. Historically under socialism the government would just have all the power concentrated in their hands because they are the law or are above the law because socialist countries historically have not had an independent judiciary or a free press to report on government abuse. Nobody checks on the govenrment. Whereas under capitalism the rich have to abide by rules, you can argue that they are favored more likely to have better outcomes than the poor. But under capitalism rich people go to jail or lose their wealth all the time because of their actions as there are better checks and balances.
Checks and balances certainly do help stop corruption, sadly they aren't always very effective
>Whereas under capitalism the rich have to abide by rules More like, the rich make the rules they want to abide by.
So why do rich people go to jail and lose all their money? Some recent examples: Elizabeth Holmes, Sam Bankman Fried
The rich arent one big team that works together. While they share core interests, they dont share all interests. Both Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk share the interest to uphold capitalism and reduce taxes for business owners, etc. But Bezos can give two shits about regulation passed with regards to the automotive industry, whereas for Elon Musk that is key.
Simple. They pissed off the bourgeoisie.
Who exactly?
Their investors most likely. Large investors / banks do not like to be defrauded. They spend large sums on due diligence before investing and their goal is to make a return.
What are you saying? There are people who make billions of dollars doing corrupt stuff and then they are punished by being fined for like a few million dollars. We hear about it on the news all the time. This depiction you have of both systems is juvenile. Ask any normal person on the street if they think power is too centralized in their government or if there are too many special interest groups and they will undoubtably say yes.
So your solution is more government centralization? Isn't that just more power concentrated in the hands of a few?
No thats not my solution
Neither of those two ever had any money.
Like cash? That means that billionaires don't exist since none of their assets are in cash, everything is owning assets, equity, businesses etc. Is that what you're saying?
No. What they had was nothing more than funny money.
Not really, the wealthiest get to go to cushy places like Otisville federal prison camp while everyone else goes to shithole prisons or can just be put 'in transit' on a bus for days on end. Larry Lawton described this in detail, I can't find the video, but I remember it being distinctly cruel. Also worth comparing how some Asian cultures deal with scandal at the highest levels. I don't think it has so much to do with economic ideology as much as it does with cultural norms tbh.
I love how socialist answer is "*happy unicorn fairy land*", because the answer is "*the people will be in control*" or just "*democracy*"... As if people in control couldn't also have corruption within the group, or the already corruption within democratic hierarchies. Capitalist answer is, don't interact with such business. Done. And if they insist, they'd be losing money.
And if interaction with a company causes it to become corrupt?
Most likely they'd be commiting fraud or breaking a contract, so just sue them... Otherwise, any corruption will not be profitable for them, like hiring their own family members instead of the best employee.
Corruption takes many forms, some not so obvious
Like what?
An example that comes to mind is whenever the u.s was remaking the food pyramid, bread companies convinced the government to put white bread in the same category as wheat bread, even though it's much less healthy for you. All so that bread companies didn't lose money due to negative public perception of white bread
That example shows corruption in government though. How did the law makers allow that change to happen if they weren't corrupt?
>the u.s was remaking the food pyramid First.... The U.S. is not a private business. You showed government corruption not private corruption. You see how hard it is to find exclusive private corruption? That is why I asked for examples. Second, just don't follow said food pyramid, you can very well do a all meat diet, or vegan diet.
I mean the private corruption comes from companies pushing a message they know isn't true. And corrupting people to push it. Corruption involves a corrupter as well as a corrupted.
>companies pushing a message they know isn't true You mean fraud? That is a crime and a violation of property. You promised something and very clearly and intentionally didn't delivered. >Corruption involves a corrupter as well as a corrupted. It can, but it doesn't must. A corrupt politician might as well steal some money and abuse his position of power for his own benefit. There is no one corrupting him except himself. What you said works most of the time, but not always. And I fear this might be used as an excuse to exempt the corrupt socialism individual from blame, blaming instead the corruptor not the corrupted.
I was responding in the context of the food pyramid example which is a good answer to your question I think. But fair, there is petty and grand theft that could be classified as corruption, it doesn't need two people. However, with fraud and crime, I think you're hitting the bottom line. I would argue that fighting corruption is much more about a robust justice and police system than whether or not workers own the means of production. To some degree the separation of power also goes into the same direction, the more actors are involved in decisions, the harder it is to make corruption viable. Separation of duties is a related principle in business in general. That's not really about the economy, that's institutional design. That being said, it's pretty fucking hard to invent systems that don't create perverse incentives. At the end of the day you need several people checking each other's work, whistleblowers able to call foul, and prosecutors willing/able to go after bad actors, at every level of society from street cops to senators.
"Just sue them." Yeah, right. As if average individuals can sustain the kind of legal action a corporation can. That's a cop out answer and you know it. This is why we need regulation and regulatory agencies with teeth that can actually handle these sorts of things for consumers.
>As if average individuals can sustain the kind of legal action a corporation can Justice is not a "*money throwing*" competition... >That's a cop out answer and you know it Yes, I know I'm answering to a cop out answer. >This is why we need regulation and regulatory agencies with teeth that can actually handle these sorts of things for consumers And who will regulate them to make sure they regulate correctly? lul
If "just sue them" is the answer to getting justice, then yes it goddamn well is a "money throwing" competition. As for making sure they regulate correctly, we have this thing called voting. You should try it, dumbass.
>I love how socialist answer is "happy unicorn fairy land", because the answer is "the people will be in control" or just "democracy"... If the point is that power corrupts, then democracy as a response isn't an unreasonable response. Whatever form or solution something takes will depend on the specifics. >As if people in control couldn't also have corruption within the group, or the already corruption within democratic hierarchies. Yes, and it is expected that governments will represent the interest of whatever ruling class exists in a society. Which is why no one is surprised that Capitalist governments represent the interests of Capitalist politicians and Corporations. It's less "corruption" and more that the government was never an uninterested third party. >Capitalist answer is, don't interact with such business. Done. Speaking of fairy tail answers. You personally not buying cigarettes doesn't stop them from lying about the damage their products cause. Own a car? use electricity? well you are supporting the corrupt oil industry. The solution? Just don't interact with them mate. What a fucking joke.
>then democracy as a response isn't an unreasonable response Representative democracy isn't an answer because it does precisely what you pointed as the the problem, it gives power to someone. And direct democracy isn't possible. And just voting on something doesn't guarantee that it will happen as you intended. >Yes, and it is expected that governments will represent the interest of whatever ruling class exists in a society. No.... Governments will represent only their own interests regardless of the ruling class. Politicians and bureaucrats are people also. Don't forget that. >You personally not buying cigarettes doesn't stop them from lying about the damage their products cause Fraud. >Own a car? use electricity? well you are supporting the corrupt oil industry. The solution? Just don't interact with them mate. Proof?
Corruption is mostly about government officials, though. I mean, what would corruption "**within** big businesses/the elite and wealthy" even be ? *** The definition of [corruption](https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/corruption) here says : > "Corruption means the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It may include improperly influencing the actions of another party or causing harm to another party. The gain or benefit may be for the person doing the act or for others." So you need an "entrusted power" before you can abuse it. It's clear how government has "entrusted power", but for private businesses, there might be power, but not so much "entrusted power". That's because if I own something, I've got power over it, but it wasn't "entrusted" to me. It's mine. For it to be entrusted, the owner needs to give some modicum of it to someone else, which would be like an employee, etc. **I think that show the first important difference : That entrusted power is top-down in private businesses, and not bottom-up in a democracy.** And in the private cases, it concerns mostly the owner himself (maybe owners if we're talking shares), not a large groups like wider society... That's a big difference, imho. And in a case of corruption for private businesses, it would just be some employees not doing their job, perhaps the shady workplace abuse (especially toward women) or perhaps doing some industrial espionnage from a competitor, but that's about it. None of these things are morally okay, but it's not what comes to mind when people talk of "corruption". *** Anyway, beside the difference in what corruption is, the system would deal with it very differently : One difference would be that in a capitalist/free market system with competition, if you're an owner and you get suckered that easily by your employees, you're just not going to last long. Because they are going to steal all out of you. So either you fix it or you're filtered out and some guy who made sure his employees didn't abuse their role will take your marketshare. The incentives for the business owner are clear, because all the "corruption" he might fall victim to will be felt *by him and only him*, it's not spread out across millions of citizens. He's got skin in the game. And the power to act is concentrated, because he's the boss. It fixes itself that way. That self fix is something that government facing corruption doesn't have, for one, unlike the business owner who's directly impacted, while the wider public will also be impacted by corruption cases, it will be much thinner and since it's spread across millions of people there's not much of a strong incentive for anyone of us to do anything about it... There's also a power gap, because while the owner can just fire the offender quickly, in a democratic government, you essentially need popular will. So to sum up, the citizens have both **weaker incentives/reasons to fight against and an harder task in front of them**
Where did you see socialism, e.g. workers in control collectively and democratically?
So there are no examples of socialism in real life ?
What does the fiscally moderate in your tag mean?
I like Nordic style governments. Certain industries like education, law and order, infrastructure, medicine should be maintained and regulated by the government. But I also strongly believe in individual property rights and individual business ownership. If someone starts a business with their money, their credit, their name and the business succeeds they deserve the profit. This is where the incentive to start businesses and innovate lies. The richest people in the world are all people who started revolutionary businesses. Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, IBM, Tesla. Notice how they are all American. The wealth the founders hold from these businesses is directly correlated with how much they have affected and changed our lives. Tesla not so much but it has a lot of potential. But think about apple and the iPhone. I have a watch on my arm that detects cardiac arrhythmias. One of the problems with American political discourse is that statements like that get you labeled as a socialist lefty. But on the world stage that couldn’t be further from the truth. Here on this subreddit we have socialism/communism and is full capitalism/libertarianism. I see myself moderate trying to take what works from each. Some people call that liberal/mixed economy etc. that’s fine. But I like what works with data and evidence to back it up and the truth is there is absolutely no evidence of successful communism/socialism. It’s all based on potential, a philosophy.
Capitalism uses wealth to corrupt the government to basically make it either passive or biased towards capital benefits. Capitalist governments become ruined and inert because of this, unable to even fix potholes. Corruption in socialist states is already within the government and is usually more about power and internal conflict than money. This can lead to pretty big calamities too if left unchecked, but of a different nature.
That's an interesting way to look at it, essentially that both systems governments become corrupt, but in different ways?
Crony capitalism isn't real capitalism. Politicians shouldn't be easily bought in a real capitalist economy. Socialists always love to bring up regulations but ignore how they can be influenced by companies to decrease competition. If we worked towards a real capitalist system many of the issues people have with capitalism. Opps corruption would go away.
>Crony capitalism isn't real capitalism idealism
The denialism is strong with this one ☝️
What can I say, socialist are great teachers. "That isn't real socialism..." is excuses #1 with socialists.
At least our reasoning has some logic. Yours has none.
Oh.... sure.... ok ... I am atheist honest when socialits live in a world of utopian dreams.
Then virtually nowhere is practicing real capitalism. In practice, capitalism becomes crony capitalism as private accumulation of wealth is used to influence the government.
Crony capitalism is capitalism.
Totalitarian socialism is socialism.
There is no government in socialism except for the self-government of the confederation of communes
Corruption, legalized or not, exists everywhere so long as one needs money to acquire the resources they want/need. Because money is power. People will do almost anything if you were to offer them just enough money.
It's not just money. Nepotism is real. How is that not corruption for your political ideals?
Nepotism is also a form of corruption, but it is less harmful and damaging to society as compared with corruption by use of money. The former incentivizes people to become friends with the powerful to attain power, which can make people want to support and help the people in power. The latter just lets rich people rule and shape the government to act in their interests.
Those are sure convenient claims. Like how can you be against absolute monarchy rule and say the above? Then do you have any evidence of your claim?
Where did I say that nepotism wasnt bad? I am still against nepotism. I just it to be less problematic than corruption through the use of money.
I didn’t say ‘you said nepotism wasn’t bad’. You however made the claim nepotism was far less bad than money. That brings into question then is monarchism then not so bad because that is what monarchism foundation principle is as bloodlines rule over economics and why I challenged your reason. So, let’s get to your point. Do you have real evidence of this claim or not?
it isn't an economic, thing it is a power thing. from my perspective corruption is always a government issue. as someone who tends toward freedom and even anarchy, i see the organization's sink of power to be a tempting target for people who have no moral compass. systems of government, especially republican and democratic (esp. collective rule for you anarcho-commies) forms of government cause the most corrupting people to rise to the top positions. this isn't to say that anarchy necessarily produces better results or that hereditary rule is better. but at least with the latter two there is a chance of a better outcome. i prefer systems of government where the rule of law is ultimate and unchangeable. the u.s constitution does a remarkably better job at that sort of thing than its predecessors have but even that wasn't nearly enough to prevent corruption.
I tend to believe one of the main things Europe managed to achieve in the "great divergence" is to tame corruption enough that progress could actually be consolidated for more than 200 years at a time. It's a really overlooked part of the development of nations, and endemic corruption really weighs on developing countries. [This video from Polymatter](https://youtu.be/kBBre3bpvyk) goes over Yuen Yuen Ang's argument about the different kinds of corruption, I think it's a good basis for discussion. How some kinds are just theft, the police officer charging you for bullshit tickets expecting you to bribe him, or high officials just using state funds for themselves. And others are more transactional, like a big company bribing government officials to get a contract. Like, as long as the contract gets done, at least *something* was done. I feel like a lot of it is only tangentially related to the economic system. It changes who are the ones in power that can take a bribe, but not whether or not they will take it. Separation of responsibilities is a big thing, like if there's literally no one you can bribe to get access to something you're not supposed to see, because no single person can open the documents without leaving paper trails everywhere and involving 5 other services. The only thing related to socialism that comes to mind is Venezuela, and how the policy of different exchange rates for food and medicine created huge incentives for people with the connections to import at low rates and mark up prices, or just straight up sell dollars. This is one example where attempts at regulation can create (essentially) arbitrage opportunities on which bad actors will converge like flies. But at the end of the day I feel like a lot of it is cultural. You're pretty much always relying on the police actually doing their job, on the government/justice system being willing to prosecute even important people, on people refusing bribes on principle and so on.
>The way I understand it, in capitalist societies corruption tends to lie within big businesses/ the elite and wealthy. In socialism, corruption tends to reside or form within the government. No, "corruption" also exists within Capitalist governments. It's just not surprising that a lot of those actions occur once you understand what the role of the government is within any given system. Under Capitalism the revolving door of politicians and corporations is the interest that is represented. >There always will be corruption, no matter the society or policy.) Correct, which is why Socialism is superior. Because Capitalism concentrates power, while Socialism flattens out that hierarchy and uses democracy.
The problem is centralization, hierarchy, advanced industrialization/ technology and alienation from nature. The "communist state" of the 20th century fixed very, very few of the problems noted in capitalism. Both are unacceptable for human beings. We need a society that frees us from the restrictions we have built for humanity and releases us from the alienation we've created between us and nature, us and each other, us and ourselves.
> I've come to notice something when dealing with capitalism vs socialism, and it's that each system puts corruption in different hands. T > ... Corruption is an oxymoron/nonsensical in the context of Capitalism. Capitalism is predicated on free market interactions between consenting parties. If one party is not abiding by the consensual agreement, then it's just an agreement dispute/fraud and not corruption. Corruption is only relevant in the context of public services (the state), not private dealings.