Martin William Smith wrote:

[...]

>Corruption normally refers to moral perversion or depravity.
>Dishonesty.  These are terms that apply to the behavior of people, not
>systems.  When we say a particular government was or is corrupt, we
>are talking about the people who operated or are operating that
>government.  The government itself, the system, if it is well-defined,
>normally doesn't lack integrity.

Let's examine a government system that we can all agree was corrupt, the
former Soviet Union. I presume you've read the Chomsky article just posted
by F. Leon, I think it precisely outlines the failings, that is the Soviet
Union was a total corruption of the ideal of socialism. The question is,
why?

I think I know why, it wasn't because Lenin or Stalin were evil people, the
fault does not lie with weak individuals.

The problem has it's roots in material circumstances. The ideal of
socialism was a very desirable one, but it cannot be simply created out of
nothing, it requires a certain material base. As has been discussed by
philosophers as far back as Aristotle, the minimum material pre-requisite
is that there needs to be the means to provide for the adequate material
comforts of everyone in society.

To put it another way, if there isn't enough for all, then obviously
someone has to go without. You can't expect that such decisions as who will
starve and who will eat can be decided democratically. Maybe you can design
a system for doing it, but it is pretty silly to think it will work. It is
also absurd to complain that the people who have been, democratically,
selected to starve, are corrupt if they seek to escape this fate.

One of the central tenets of socialism is democratic control over
production and distribution, but in a situation such as existed in
pre-revolutionary Russia, where there was simply not enough to go around,
that just won't work.

The early Christians were in a similar dilemma. They advocated complete
equality, sharing everything. But it was simply impractical in the context
of the then-existing means of production. It would mean every person in
society living a life of bare subsistence, of grinding poverty, from which
society could never escape. You might say that those later Christians who
gave lip service to the ideal while living personal lives of relative
luxury, were corrupting the Christian ideal, and must accept personal
respoponsibility. But the real blame lies with the ideal, which didn't take
any account of material circumstances.

Socialism was materially impossible in 1917 Russia, just as it was
impossible in early Rome. So if the individuals did not live up to those
ideals, the fundamental problem is clearly one of material circumstances,
not with corrupt individuals. The ideal was impossible to live up to. The
point is, even if the individuals had somehow managed to be pure and
consistent with Russian Communist ideals, that would not have helped.

The only democracy possible was political democracy leading to capitalism.
Economic democracy (socialism) was materially impossible. Lenin was between
a rock and a hard place. He made the wrong choice, in hindsight, but not
necessarily because he was a bad person, but because he was faced with bad
choices.

He thought he could develop the material circumstances necessary for
socialism by instituting an idealistic dictatorship. He convinced himself
that this was a short-cut to socialism, one that avoided all the evils of
capitalism.

He was obviously wrong. The evils of dictatorship are, on balance, greater
than the evils of capitalism. To make matters worse, dictatorship is a
dead-end economically as well.

Because dictatorship *breeds* corruption for one thing. Power corrupts, the
sage was right I'm afraid Martin.

>  The US government, for example, as
>defined by the US Constitution and interpreted by the US Supreme
>Court, doesn't lack integrity.

Give us a break Martin, all that stuff about all people being created
equal, everyone being entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. And how does that square with chattel slavery exactly? Because
slavery *was* apparantly consistent with these grand ideals remember, an
inherently corrupting contradiction right from the very start. One that the
US is still suffering from.

[...]

>I see that you want to declare any system you don't like to be corrupt
>so you can justify dismantling it, but I think what you are saying
>about corruption doesn't make sense.

You misunderstand me. Class society for instance is not necessarily a
corrupt system. It's a very progressive way of deciding who will starve and
who will eat. When the material circumstances dictate that some must live
and some must starve.

But when, as now, there is no longer any material need for anyone to
starve, when it is possible for everyone's needs to be met, it is
inherently evil and corrupt to continue to starve thousands of people daily
merely to preserve a *system*.

>> It is power that corrupts the individual, according to the sage, not
>> the other way around.
>
>The sage is wrong.  I'm right.  A corrupt act is a chosen act.  If I
>choose to use power immorally or illegally or unethically, it's my
>choice and I am guilty.

What if your choices are to do what seems to be the right and moral thing,
or to do the *legal* thing?

Or: What if your choice is between using your power to do something that
will result in severe suffering by your children, or doing something that
will result in mild suffering by someone you don't know? Are you seriously
going to tell me that a person should be condemned for choosing the latter
option, do you really believe that a person put in such an invidious
position should be condemned for doing what any person would do. The fault
*clearly* lies with the system that puts you in such a position. Nearly
everyone in positions of power are, at some times, faced with such terrible
choices, it corrupts them.

>  You're saying that the person who has power
>is an automaton.

No Martin, it is *you* that are arguing that position. I am merely arguing
that they are human, and have the usual human flaws and weaknesses.

> You are saying that all the immoral acts performed
>by people in positions of power are not punishable crimes because
>those people have no choice.

You are saying that these corrupt choices need to be punished because the
people in power should somehow be capable of superhuman acts of
self-sacrifice. Be reasonable Martin.

[...]

>I don't think that is my problem.  I am actually a system designer and
>am acutely aware of system weaknesses.

Social systems are a bit more complicated than software systems Martin.

>  I agree that the US government
>needs a major overhaul, but it isn't corrupt.  It does what it is
>designed to do.  It's just that what it is designed to do isn't what
>we want it to do.

It's just that it isn't designed to serve the needs of people. People
therefor have to corrupt the system sometimes to have their needs met. Is
satisfying your needs corrupt?

[...]

>> So it also explains the punitive/puritanical streak in US culture as
>> well.  Fascinating, I'm beginning to understand you people.
>
>I don't think you do.  The punitive/puritanical streak comes from the
>fundamentalist sects of Christianity.

Didn't a lot of the members of these sects leave Europe for colonial
America and eventually play a big part in setting up the US system of
government?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.