• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    111 year ago

    If you skip past most of this please read the last paragraph.

    First point to make “will corrupt it the same way they do for capitalism”

    People that actually say this are already in the wrong. They look at places like the US and see the politicians not working for the people. Getting into bed with big business money and screwing over the rest of the population… The rest of the population being the workers, the labor forces… The US is a capitalist government… This is not corruption. Corruption doesn’t not mean “evil” or “bad,” it means “doing something that goes against what the current system is set up to do.” The way we use “corruption” in the US is actually the system working as intended. The government is SUPPOSED to do this. They are SUPPOSED to uphold the power of the capitalist at the expense of the people. Protecting and serving the capitalist class has always been the governments purpose. They have just spend centuries convincing the populace when it’s not. That the government is there to protect and serve all Americans. A real, actual corrupt politician in the US is one that would help the workers at the expense of businesses. In the same light a politician that uses his office to further their own wealth is not corrupt in the eyes of capitalism. That’s a very capitalist thing to do. Further your own accumulation of capital at the expense of the working class.

    You notice these politicians never further their own wealth if it is going to hurt the oligarchy in any meaningful way, and the ones that do are cast out almost immediately. So the US DOES weed out corruption. It’s why you don’t see many politicians in the US actually helping the working class or going against the oligarchy. You think the US didn’t do mass purges? Look at what they did to crush the communist parties that had so much support their marches filled the streets of cities during and after the great depression.

    The irony is that by doing this they create a definition of corruption in politics that is only really applicable to socialist nations. A socialist working with businesses at the expense of workers IS actual corruption. A socialist politician that uses their position for personal gains etc. Is corruption. That’s NOT how the system is intended to work. So the definition applies.

    The other thing that no one ever seems to think about or bring up is this.

    Ok so let’s say both systems get “corrupted” right? What happens when the corrupt get into power? Do the all of a sudden become “less corrupt”? Do the go “ok I’m in now but here where it stops” or do they FURTHER the corruption of the system? Anyone with a miniscule amount of brain activity will say they do the latter. A corrupted system furthers its own corruption. To make it safe for them who are corrupt. So then you have to point out… a “corrupt” capitalist system as they define it… never really changes. It never stops being capitalist. If history has shown us anything,it’s that when a SOCIALIST nation gets to a certain point in it’s corruptuon what happens? It BECOMES capitalist… It stops serving the people and begins serving capitol. The fall of the USSR is a perfect example. By this reasoning one can say that with “corruption” as they define it, there is no socialist country to ever exist that is more corrupt than a capitalist one. Because corrupt socialism devolves into capitalism as it becomes more corrupt. Capitalism is the system in which the corrupt create to be safe and maintain their power and wealth. It does not devolve into anything because it’s already at its final level. One could say " but Fascism" but fascism isn’t an entirely different system. It still runs on capitalism.