Corruption

[GPDP]

Is corruption a useful term in politics at all? I've been wondering that myself. I mean, I suppose it works in the abstract to describe organizations or individuals that sell out or stray off their path, but how useful is it when analyzing the realities of capitalism, especially for us socialists? What is the real difference between a corrupt bourgeois politician and a "legit" one?

I suppose I'm questioning the term's utility because, at least in Latin-American politics so far as I've seen, it's usually the right-wing who comes out campaigning to "end corruption" in government. But even if it's a socialist saying that, how exactly does one stamp out corruption anyway?

It just seems to me to be a term more in line with the right-wing's way of thinking, that it's not the system that's bad, but the people running it, not to mention it plays into the whole "government's the problem not the solution" spiel. But even talking of systemic as opposed to individual corruption, isn't that substituting materialist class struggle with idealist moralism?

[Dogs On Acid]

Is corruption a useful term in politics at all? I've been wondering that myself. I mean, I suppose it works in the abstract to describe organizations or individuals that sell out or stray off their path, but how useful is it when analyzing the realities of capitalism, especially for us socialists? What is the real difference between a corrupt bourgeois politician and a "legit" one?

A "legit" bourgeois politician steals from us, a corrupt one just steals more.


I suppose I'm questioning the term's utility because, at least in Latin-American politics so far as I've seen, it's usually the right-wing who comes out campaigning to "end corruption" in government. But even if it's a socialist saying that, how exactly does one stamp out corruption anyway?

In Portugal it was the Left-Wing that proposed anti-corruption systems. But corruption will always exist while there is power or personal gain to be held. So in a Communist society mild corruption might still exist, but nothing like in bourgeois democracy.


It just seems to me to be a term more in line with the right-wing's way of thinking, that it's not the system that's bad, but the people running it, not to mention it plays into the whole "government's the problem not the solution" spiel. But even talking of systemic as opposed to individual corruption, isn't that substituting materialist class struggle with idealist moralism?

It's in line with whomever is in opposition. And for the "government is the problem" argument, well it's not, it's the power that it grants that's the problem. And non-government institutions can be corrupt also, so it's just about power really.

[GPDP]

So in other words, if power tends to corrupt, then it's safe to say every person in power is either corrupt or prone to corruption.

So again, what is the point of the whole corruption narrative? It just seems like such an idealist, and dare I say conservative notion. Again, it's not the system that corrupts, it's just individuals within it that happen to turn into "bad apples."

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, the 'corruption' narrative is generally part of a larger 'bad apples' narrative of events, which one can see, for example, in the reaction to the economic crisis insofar as it focused on 'greedy bankers' and the like. When it comes to politicians and such, in any case the interests of the national economy are identified with those of capital by the existence of the world market, especially in modern times when they are quite susceptible to crises, so it's not really clear where 'national interests' ends (and generally 'corruption' is opposed to working in the interests of the 'nation' or 'society' or something of the sort) and 'corruption' begins. In individual cases, it can make sense to speak of 'corruption', but the corruption narrative seems somewhat tenuous in this regard.

[GPDP]

Well, the 'corruption' narrative is generally part of a larger 'bad apples' narrative of events, which one can see, for example, in the reaction to the economic crisis insofar as it focused on 'greedy bankers' and the like. When it comes to politicians and such, in any case the interests of the national economy are identified with those of capital by the existence of the world market, especially in modern times when they are quite susceptible to crises, so it's not really clear where 'national interests' ends (and generally 'corruption' is opposed to working in the interests of the 'nation' or 'society' or something of the sort) and 'corruption' begins. In individual cases, it can make sense to speak of 'corruption', but the corruption narrative seems somewhat tenuous in this regard.

Indeed, this is all true. It seems to me the scandals most commonly arise with politicians who are caught acting against the "national interest" (here the national interest being capital's interest). I think the narrative usually places corruption as taking place when a politician is caught enriching himself or some private interest at the cost of the government, but then again, when the right-wing does it, it's usually if the politician in question is doing something they're not supposed to be doing, like, say, wealth redistribution to the poor.

[W1N5T0N]

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Corruption seems to be inherent in pretty much any society.
I doubt it has anything to do with capitalism/politics directly. Human power-craving (of course, only in a small number of individuals, but nevertheless) is at the base of this. Thats why you need a system which prevents this, a system which has not been widely put into practice properly...

[Kamos]

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Corruption seems to be inherent in pretty much any society.

Ah, the human nature argument. Now where have I heard that...

What need will there be for being corrupt in a society where, even if it's not perfect in every sense, your needs are still fulfilled?

[ZeroNowhere]

Politicians aren't 'corrupt' because of 'power', they're 'corrupt' because of the structure of global capitalism. If the working class takes power, then they are 'corrupt' insofar as they are acting in their own interests as opposed to the fictitious social interest, but at this point the word seems fairly meaningless on the whole.

[W1N5T0N]

Soviet Russia - Corrupt comissar-ocracy.

And questions?