5 ms·

Are you suggesting that communism is somehow less corrupt? If so, I encourage you to read about how communism was practiced in the real world, and the meaning o

by Tharre 10y ago

Are you suggesting that communism is somehow less corrupt? If so, I encourage you to read about how communism was practiced in the real world, and the meaning of the phrase "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others". Governments have, and will, always be corrupt. Politicians don't decide to become corrupt, it's part of the job. It's how power has always worked. If you want to reduce this corruption, the best thing you can do is to limit the power and money the government has. And the best way to do that is by passing solid constitutional laws. Surely not an easy task, but a real first step in the direction of a stable democracy.

blowski 10y ago
The opposite of 'corrupt capitalism' is not 'communism'. It's possible to imagine a form of regulated capitalism that doesn't invoke Stalin.
- Tharre 10y ago
  What is the opposite then? You can imagine a lot, but I don't see how telling the very same people that were supposedly corrupted by capitalism to regulate it would change anything.
  - blowski 10y ago
    There are a lot of different political systems - it's not a binary choice between unregulated capitalism and communism dictatorship. For example - democratic socialism, regulatory capitalism, state capitalism, etc. I have no idea how it will happen, but I hope we won't need a bloody revolution to reduce the influence of finance and economic markets on modern life.
    - Tharre 10y ago
      You misunderstood me. I don't argue that there is a binary choice, nor do I argue that unregulated capitalism is what we need. I'm merely arguing that corruption isn't inherently tied to capitalism or any other economic system. That Governments will always be corrupt. Meaning that blaming capitalism for being "corrupt" is about as productive as blaming people for being selfish.
      - blowski 10y ago
        Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. But the current version of capitalism dominant in the world is corrupt, and desperately needs radical change. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many well-thought out alternatives with good leaders - so we end up with Trump and Farage peddling demagoguery.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. Capitalism is inherently and fundamentally the corruption of government to organize society and basic law (especially property relations) to favor the narrow, capitalist class, which is the fact for which critics of capitalism coined the term "capitalism" to refer to the system corrupted in that way.
        blowski 10y ago
        You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? That begs the question of the natural form of government that would exist without capitalism. It seems to me that once societies are big enough to need government, they first reach for something like feudalism, then capitalism. That's a simplified version of Marx. I don't see capitalism as inherently corrupt, but I can see how it has a tendency to become corrupt without tight regulation. It does favour the ruling class, but that's the inherent nature of government - those who put it in place put something that suits their interests.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? No, I'm saying "capitalism" is a name for a particular manner of corruption of government. Or, more fully, a particular-but-still-quite-corrupt stage in the evolution of government away from the perfectly corrupt state of public power unified with the personal interest of the ruler or members of the ruling class with no distinction, wherein the structure of property rights established by government creates and maintains a ruling class which still has disproportionate and dominant power over the formal public power, but in which nevertheless (unlike preceding stages) there exists a formal, if often misleading, distinction between the formal institutions of public power and the members of the ruling class.
  - siavosh 10y ago
    If you look at the post-war period, from 1946 till 1970s/early 1980s, the US has a much more progressive tax rate, and there was more bank regulation. It was also coincidentally the golden age of American economics. Since the 1980's, taxes have become more and more regressive and regulation on all fronts against corporate excess and distortion of markets has increased. Government has a very important role in capitalism (bust monopolies, ensure companies compete fairly etc). Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises. Many would argue that capitalism has been corrupted through a corruption of politics.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      >Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises There were some pretty deep recessions in the 50's and 70's. With the very important exception of the great recession, this doesn't really hold up against inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...

by Tharre 10y ago

blowski 10y ago

The opposite of 'corrupt capitalism' is not 'communism'. It's possible to imagine a form of regulated capitalism that doesn't invoke Stalin.

Tharre 10y ago
What is the opposite then? You can imagine a lot, but I don't see how telling the very same people that were supposedly corrupted by capitalism to regulate it would change anything.
- blowski 10y ago
  There are a lot of different political systems - it's not a binary choice between unregulated capitalism and communism dictatorship. For example - democratic socialism, regulatory capitalism, state capitalism, etc. I have no idea how it will happen, but I hope we won't need a bloody revolution to reduce the influence of finance and economic markets on modern life.
  - Tharre 10y ago
    You misunderstood me. I don't argue that there is a binary choice, nor do I argue that unregulated capitalism is what we need. I'm merely arguing that corruption isn't inherently tied to capitalism or any other economic system. That Governments will always be corrupt. Meaning that blaming capitalism for being "corrupt" is about as productive as blaming people for being selfish.
    - blowski 10y ago
      Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. But the current version of capitalism dominant in the world is corrupt, and desperately needs radical change. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many well-thought out alternatives with good leaders - so we end up with Trump and Farage peddling demagoguery.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. Capitalism is inherently and fundamentally the corruption of government to organize society and basic law (especially property relations) to favor the narrow, capitalist class, which is the fact for which critics of capitalism coined the term "capitalism" to refer to the system corrupted in that way.
        blowski 10y ago
        You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? That begs the question of the natural form of government that would exist without capitalism. It seems to me that once societies are big enough to need government, they first reach for something like feudalism, then capitalism. That's a simplified version of Marx. I don't see capitalism as inherently corrupt, but I can see how it has a tendency to become corrupt without tight regulation. It does favour the ruling class, but that's the inherent nature of government - those who put it in place put something that suits their interests.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? No, I'm saying "capitalism" is a name for a particular manner of corruption of government. Or, more fully, a particular-but-still-quite-corrupt stage in the evolution of government away from the perfectly corrupt state of public power unified with the personal interest of the ruler or members of the ruling class with no distinction, wherein the structure of property rights established by government creates and maintains a ruling class which still has disproportionate and dominant power over the formal public power, but in which nevertheless (unlike preceding stages) there exists a formal, if often misleading, distinction between the formal institutions of public power and the members of the ruling class.
- siavosh 10y ago
  If you look at the post-war period, from 1946 till 1970s/early 1980s, the US has a much more progressive tax rate, and there was more bank regulation. It was also coincidentally the golden age of American economics. Since the 1980's, taxes have become more and more regressive and regulation on all fronts against corporate excess and distortion of markets has increased. Government has a very important role in capitalism (bust monopolies, ensure companies compete fairly etc). Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises. Many would argue that capitalism has been corrupted through a corruption of politics.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    >Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises There were some pretty deep recessions in the 50's and 70's. With the very important exception of the great recession, this doesn't really hold up against inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...