4 ms·

Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political. In many cases, the officials and executives purged are, in fact, corrupt, and breaking domestic law.

by retrac 3y ago

Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political. In many cases, the officials and executives purged are, in fact, corrupt, and breaking domestic law. But the political element is really unavoidable. These serve as demonstrations of the state's power, and its legitimacy. Sort of a paradox there - if the state is so powerful and legitimate, how did such a massive scale of embezzlement go on for so long? Never mind that, let's watch the execution. One might even say, particularly at the highest level, that these matters are also political in constitutional republics, like the USA. How aggressively CEOs get prosecuted, does depend on the executive investigating and prosecuting offenders, and whether Congress wants to pass stricter laws. One interpretation, is that the American state, does not feel the need to demonstrate its authority in such a dramatic way.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political... How aggressively CEOs get prosecuted, does depend on the executive investigating and prosecuting offenders, and whether Congress wants to pass stricter laws Do you have a source for these ideas, or are they your own? I can't speak for everyone of course but for myself and any of the many people I've had in-depth conversations with, none of us generally wonder how embezzlement happened in the first place, regardless of length, instead we marvel at the utter lack of any consequences for the convicted individual. In this way the state's power is far, far more illegitimized by the fact that it's apparently fine with people stealing incredible sums of money either from itself or from it's citizens and seems content to levy meaningless fines on the perpetrator after the fact, if even that. (or, in my leftier and more conspiratorial groups, that the weakness of the state to prosecute financial crimes is a direct result of the system being designed by rich people to facilitate the activities of other rich people, but I digress) The only ones in recent memory I can recall are Sam Bankman-Fried, which is still ongoing, and Elizabeth Holmes, both of whom seemed to have committed the proper crime of stealing from other rich people, whereas the ones who steal from the working/middle class are left largely untouched. A coincidence I'm sure. Where Government funds land in terms of "is this rich people's money or poor people's money" is up to the reader of the comment to determine, that one's prosecution rate does seem to trend more political, as tons of incredibly wealthy people are milking the government cow for absolutely mind-bending amounts of money and delivering basically nothing. > One interpretation, is that the American state, does not feel the need to demonstrate its authority in such a dramatic way. Maybe it should feel that need, since the lion's share of it's population on either side of the political spectrum thinks of the government as largely a joke. But they've also dis-empowered us to such a degree that our opinion on them largely doesn't matter anyway, so, on it goes.
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  Add Bernie Madoff, who, of course, was also stealing from other rich people. The capitalist state makes more sense when you see it as the Central Committee of the bourgeoisie. They may take action against individual capitalists, but only in the interest of the capital class as a whole.
bigcat12345678 3y ago
> Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political. This is true to a certain extent. But this is actually truer here in democracy country than authoritarian country. Think about it. In authoritarian country, corruption is part of the system that has internal regulation. While here in democratic country, corruption has no explicit definition. It's just a matter of if your enemy sees corruption attackable. That makes punishing corruption in democratic country entirely political driven. This phenomenone happens on industry: like Boeing, it has doged punishment until political resentment is no longer containable. It happens to high power, as epstain's case; and government officials Trump and Biden's family for example.
- skissane 3y ago
  > While here in democratic country, corruption has no explicit definition. It's just a matter of if your enemy sees corruption attackable. That makes punishing corruption in democratic country entirely political driven. Some democratic countries have independent apolitical anti-corruption agencies. For example, the Australian state of New South Wales has an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which is headed by a judge. Few seriously argue it is politically motivated, although it has caused controversy by destroying the careers of politicians over what some see as relatively minor offences (e.g. in 2014, the state Premier was forced to resign because he gave it false testimony over a $3,000 bottle of wine, although he insisted the falsehood was due to forgetfulness not intentional lying) It also has an official definition of corruption, and subjects of investigation can challenge in the courts whether the investigation is consistent with that definition. In 2015, a senior prosecutor succeeded in getting a ruling from Australia’s highest court that ICAC had overstepped its authority in investigating her for a personal matter unrelated to her job as a prosecutor (she had been recorded on a wiretap giving advice to her son’s girlfriend on how to evade a police investigation into a traffic accident). However, legislators subsequently amended the definition, effectively overturning that court judgement.
janalsncm 3y ago
> One interpretation, is that the American state, does not feel the need to demonstrate its authority in such a dramatic way Punishing crimes isn’t about demonstrating authority, it’s about creating incentives against committing those crimes. If anything, the message the US tends to give is that corruption is an acceptable cost of doing business.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > it’s about creating incentives against committing those crimes. Which can only happen if the punishments are consistent and non discriminatory. > the message the US tends to give is that corruption is an acceptable cost of doing business. "You won't be murdered on a technicality." Is actually a really great shore investment pitch.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    Is embezzling billions of dollars a technicality? The fact that Vietnam might even execute a businesswoman for stealing a huge amount of money doesn’t make me any less interested in doing business there.
    - akira2501 3y ago
      Over several years. From a bank she held a controlling interest in. With 85 other defendants. It's nice to imagine the buck stops with her. Apparently the people who've passed this sentence are hopeful for this outcome. So.. "you won't be murdered to cover up state incompetence." If you like.
      - NhanH 3y ago
        The government head auditor covering up for her bank got life sentence, the auditor’s bosses (2 of them) got 11-year sentence.
  - vkou 3y ago
    It's a great investment pitch for actual conmen, too. But you can't just invest your way in a successful fraud, in either system. You generally need to also have the political machine protecting you, otherwise the thing will eventually unravel, and 'your' plunder might get clawed back.
smcl 3y ago
Enormous raised eyebrow at describing Vietnam as “Leninist”
- retrac 3y ago
  Vietnam is ruled by a Marxist-Leninist party. One-party rule, vanguardist, officially Marxist, ruling allegedly for the benefit of the workers. Similar to contemporary China, Cuba, or the late USSR. What term would you prefer, if not (Marxist-)Leninist, to describe this type of state?
  - smcl 3y ago
    If you look at modern day Vietnam and say “ah yes, this is a Marxist-Leninist state” then I am sorry but you are very naive or dishonest. Presumably the same literal interpretation isn’t extended to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and I sincerely hope by now that you don’t think the Chinese Communist Party govern anything other than a state-capitalist country. I don’t know what to call these countries, but selectively taking these states descriptions of themselves at face value is very silly indeed, and doesn’t really contribute much to the conversation. In my experience, the “X is communist/socialist/leninist/whatever” is most often deployed online as shorthand to indicate to (and then naively repeated by) credulous, sheltered or otherwise ignorant Americans that the country in question is bad and that even if it’s imperfect the USA is still #1, baby.
    - retrac 3y ago
      > [...] I don’t know what to call these countries Marxist-Leninist, Communist. It's what they were always described as. There's historical context here. You have offered no objection to the use of the term "Leninist" other than it being what these states describe themselves as. What's wrong with that? Does "Leninist" have some other competing meaning that would be confusing? (Like with the "Democratic" of the DPRK?) Accepting self-terminology does not endorse it. Or everyone who called the USSR Communist back in the day was accepting that they were, in fact, on the way to communism. (That's not usually what someone means when they called these states communist, and such people aren't usually being naive or dishonest either. Nice dichotomy, by the way.) Would you have preferred capital-C Communist? That's basically a synonym for Marxist-Leninist.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by retrac 3y ago

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political... How aggressively CEOs get prosecuted, does depend on the executive investigating and prosecuting offenders, and whether Congress wants to pass stricter laws Do you have a source for these ideas, or are they your own? I can't speak for everyone of course but for myself and any of the many people I've had in-depth conversations with, none of us generally wonder how embezzlement happened in the first place, regardless of length, instead we marvel at the utter lack of any consequences for the convicted individual. In this way the state's power is far, far more illegitimized by the fact that it's apparently fine with people stealing incredible sums of money either from itself or from it's citizens and seems content to levy meaningless fines on the perpetrator after the fact, if even that. (or, in my leftier and more conspiratorial groups, that the weakness of the state to prosecute financial crimes is a direct result of the system being designed by rich people to facilitate the activities of other rich people, but I digress) The only ones in recent memory I can recall are Sam Bankman-Fried, which is still ongoing, and Elizabeth Holmes, both of whom seemed to have committed the proper crime of stealing from other rich people, whereas the ones who steal from the working/middle class are left largely untouched. A coincidence I'm sure. Where Government funds land in terms of "is this rich people's money or poor people's money" is up to the reader of the comment to determine, that one's prosecution rate does seem to trend more political, as tons of incredibly wealthy people are milking the government cow for absolutely mind-bending amounts of money and delivering basically nothing. > One interpretation, is that the American state, does not feel the need to demonstrate its authority in such a dramatic way. Maybe it should feel that need, since the lion's share of it's population on either side of the political spectrum thinks of the government as largely a joke. But they've also dis-empowered us to such a degree that our opinion on them largely doesn't matter anyway, so, on it goes.

NoGravitas 3y ago
Add Bernie Madoff, who, of course, was also stealing from other rich people. The capitalist state makes more sense when you see it as the Central Committee of the bourgeoisie. They may take action against individual capitalists, but only in the interest of the capital class as a whole.

bigcat12345678 3y ago

> Corruption purges in Leninist states are always political. This is true to a certain extent. But this is actually truer here in democracy country than authoritarian country. Think about it. In authoritarian country, corruption is part of the system that has internal regulation. While here in democratic country, corruption has no explicit definition. It's just a matter of if your enemy sees corruption attackable. That makes punishing corruption in democratic country entirely political driven. This phenomenone happens on industry: like Boeing, it has doged punishment until political resentment is no longer containable. It happens to high power, as epstain's case; and government officials Trump and Biden's family for example.

skissane 3y ago
> While here in democratic country, corruption has no explicit definition. It's just a matter of if your enemy sees corruption attackable. That makes punishing corruption in democratic country entirely political driven. Some democratic countries have independent apolitical anti-corruption agencies. For example, the Australian state of New South Wales has an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which is headed by a judge. Few seriously argue it is politically motivated, although it has caused controversy by destroying the careers of politicians over what some see as relatively minor offences (e.g. in 2014, the state Premier was forced to resign because he gave it false testimony over a $3,000 bottle of wine, although he insisted the falsehood was due to forgetfulness not intentional lying) It also has an official definition of corruption, and subjects of investigation can challenge in the courts whether the investigation is consistent with that definition. In 2015, a senior prosecutor succeeded in getting a ruling from Australia’s highest court that ICAC had overstepped its authority in investigating her for a personal matter unrelated to her job as a prosecutor (she had been recorded on a wiretap giving advice to her son’s girlfriend on how to evade a police investigation into a traffic accident). However, legislators subsequently amended the definition, effectively overturning that court judgement.

janalsncm 3y ago

> One interpretation, is that the American state, does not feel the need to demonstrate its authority in such a dramatic way Punishing crimes isn’t about demonstrating authority, it’s about creating incentives against committing those crimes. If anything, the message the US tends to give is that corruption is an acceptable cost of doing business.

akira2501 3y ago
> it’s about creating incentives against committing those crimes. Which can only happen if the punishments are consistent and non discriminatory. > the message the US tends to give is that corruption is an acceptable cost of doing business. "You won't be murdered on a technicality." Is actually a really great shore investment pitch.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  Is embezzling billions of dollars a technicality? The fact that Vietnam might even execute a businesswoman for stealing a huge amount of money doesn’t make me any less interested in doing business there.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    Over several years. From a bank she held a controlling interest in. With 85 other defendants. It's nice to imagine the buck stops with her. Apparently the people who've passed this sentence are hopeful for this outcome. So.. "you won't be murdered to cover up state incompetence." If you like.
    - NhanH 3y ago
      The government head auditor covering up for her bank got life sentence, the auditor’s bosses (2 of them) got 11-year sentence.
- vkou 3y ago
  It's a great investment pitch for actual conmen, too. But you can't just invest your way in a successful fraud, in either system. You generally need to also have the political machine protecting you, otherwise the thing will eventually unravel, and 'your' plunder might get clawed back.

smcl 3y ago

Enormous raised eyebrow at describing Vietnam as “Leninist”

retrac 3y ago
Vietnam is ruled by a Marxist-Leninist party. One-party rule, vanguardist, officially Marxist, ruling allegedly for the benefit of the workers. Similar to contemporary China, Cuba, or the late USSR. What term would you prefer, if not (Marxist-)Leninist, to describe this type of state?
- smcl 3y ago
  If you look at modern day Vietnam and say “ah yes, this is a Marxist-Leninist state” then I am sorry but you are very naive or dishonest. Presumably the same literal interpretation isn’t extended to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and I sincerely hope by now that you don’t think the Chinese Communist Party govern anything other than a state-capitalist country. I don’t know what to call these countries, but selectively taking these states descriptions of themselves at face value is very silly indeed, and doesn’t really contribute much to the conversation. In my experience, the “X is communist/socialist/leninist/whatever” is most often deployed online as shorthand to indicate to (and then naively repeated by) credulous, sheltered or otherwise ignorant Americans that the country in question is bad and that even if it’s imperfect the USA is still #1, baby.
  - retrac 3y ago
    > [...] I don’t know what to call these countries Marxist-Leninist, Communist. It's what they were always described as. There's historical context here. You have offered no objection to the use of the term "Leninist" other than it being what these states describe themselves as. What's wrong with that? Does "Leninist" have some other competing meaning that would be confusing? (Like with the "Democratic" of the DPRK?) Accepting self-terminology does not endorse it. Or everyone who called the USSR Communist back in the day was accepting that they were, in fact, on the way to communism. (That's not usually what someone means when they called these states communist, and such people aren't usually being naive or dishonest either. Nice dichotomy, by the way.) Would you have preferred capital-C Communist? That's basically a synonym for Marxist-Leninist.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]