(tldr in the replies)
When we think of corruption the usual image that comes to mind is that of a politician, beaureacrat or banker who misuse their position of power for personal gains. And we've all heard the narrative of corrupt and bloated beareaucratic elite that shall inevitably plague all Socialist experiments. Which inevitably leads to a bad economy and eventual systematic collapse. A problem that is supposedly solved by Capitalism, privatisation and the free market since it weeds out all elements of inefficiency and corruption in it's never ending pursuit of quarterly profits.
Which is true. On a surface level Capitalism does seemingly reduce structural corruption. Even when we talk about corruption under Capitalism, it's the Capitalists corrupting the Government. But the Capitalist business itself is free from corruption. But I think there is a deeper point to be made here.
The word "Corruption" implies that there is an ideal, a perfect state of how things should be. A politician should ideally serve the best interests of the people, a bereaucrat should ideally do his duty with honesty. Therefore for corruption to exist, an ideal must first exist that could be corrupted. A Government is fundamentally built on ideals and hence it's corruptible.
Capitalism, on the other hand does not have any ideals other than chasing the bottom line. Everything is allowed towards that goal within legal bounds (and even those bounds are set by the idealistic and hence corruptible government, not the Capitalist system itself). Hence, Capitalism does not solve the problem of corruption by restoring the ideal. It solves the problem by removing the ideal altogether.
This is how we end up with the situation where a bereaucrat using his position to make money is corrupt, but a company Vice President in a similar position making millions in legal salary, usually off of the back of grunt workers is A-ok.
Capitalism cannot be corrupted because the corruption/exploitation has itself been legalised. They often blame the corrupt beareaucratic elite for causing the economic conditions that lead to the collapse of Soviet Union. But they omit the part where the same elites became the all powerful oligarchal class in the post Soviet Russia. So if Soviet Union was corrupt then capitalism was not a solution to that corruption. It was the end point, when corruption has become all encompassing enough to be systematically legalised in what we call Capitalism and private ownership of nation's resources
It was not the incompetence of the elites that brought down the Soviet Union. It was their greed. And that greed reached its conclusion in subsequent Capitalist Oligarchy.
When we think of corruption the usual image that comes to mind is that of a politician, beaureacrat or banker who misuse their position of power for personal gains. And we've all heard the narrative of corrupt and bloated beareaucratic elite that shall inevitably plague all Socialist experiments. Which inevitably leads to a bad economy and eventual systematic collapse. A problem that is supposedly solved by Capitalism, privatisation and the free market since it weeds out all elements of inefficiency and corruption in it's never ending pursuit of quarterly profits.
Which is true. On a surface level Capitalism does seemingly reduce structural corruption. Even when we talk about corruption under Capitalism, it's the Capitalists corrupting the Government. But the Capitalist business itself is free from corruption. But I think there is a deeper point to be made here.
The word "Corruption" implies that there is an ideal, a perfect state of how things should be. A politician should ideally serve the best interests of the people, a bereaucrat should ideally do his duty with honesty. Therefore for corruption to exist, an ideal must first exist that could be corrupted. A Government is fundamentally built on ideals and hence it's corruptible.
Capitalism, on the other hand does not have any ideals other than chasing the bottom line. Everything is allowed towards that goal within legal bounds (and even those bounds are set by the idealistic and hence corruptible government, not the Capitalist system itself). Hence, Capitalism does not solve the problem of corruption by restoring the ideal. It solves the problem by removing the ideal altogether.
This is how we end up with the situation where a bereaucrat using his position to make money is corrupt, but a company Vice President in a similar position making millions in legal salary, usually off of the back of grunt workers is A-ok.
Capitalism cannot be corrupted because the corruption/exploitation has itself been legalised. They often blame the corrupt beareaucratic elite for causing the economic conditions that lead to the collapse of Soviet Union. But they omit the part where the same elites became the all powerful oligarchal class in the post Soviet Russia. So if Soviet Union was corrupt then capitalism was not a solution to that corruption. It was the end point, when corruption has become all encompassing enough to be systematically legalised in what we call Capitalism and private ownership of nation's resources
It was not the incompetence of the elites that brought down the Soviet Union. It was their greed. And that greed reached its conclusion in subsequent Capitalist Oligarchy.
Last edited:
