• Graylitic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, theoretically.

    Capitalism, by definition, is a system where Capital Owners pay wage laboring workers to create commodities. Functionally, you have people with excess power.

    Communism, on the other hand, requires collective ownership of Capital. You don’t have fundamental power imbalances baked in.

    Following, it’s easier to implement anti-corruption practices, such as forming democratic worker councils.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you feel was the reason that the corruption was so high in Eastern European socialist states?

      • Graylitic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Several reasons. The politburo was highly corrupt due to flaws within Democratic Centralism. Additionally, corruption comes with being a developing country, which all eastern European Socialist states were.

        If you can find a non-corrupt developing Capitalist nation, I’ll be thoroughly impressed.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think it’s corrupt vs non-corrupt but about the level of corruption

          • Graylitic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure. The mechanisms of Capitalism support corruption even in developed nations, meanwhile it appears that corruption in Socialist systems is similar to corruption in developing Capitalist nations, as there haven’t been any developed Socialist nations. Fair?