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.
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.
There was never socialism in Asia or Eastern Europe. At no point have the workers seized the means of production and had a dictatorship of the proletariat.
I think many of the socialist states of Asia and Eastern Europe are or were ridiculously corrupt. How democratic those were is of course questionable.
The same could be said of Capitalism. The difference is that the very structure of Socialism is based on democratic principles.
I meant that it wasn’t really very resistant to corruption.
It’s still structurally more resistant to corruption than Capitalism, which is my point. It’s not immune, nothing is.
I’m not sure even that is true. Not sure how you can even really measure that. Or do you mean it could theoretically be?
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.
What do you feel was the reason that the corruption was so high in Eastern European socialist states?
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.
I don’t think it’s corrupt vs non-corrupt but about the level of corruption
There was never socialism in Asia or Eastern Europe. At no point have the workers seized the means of production and had a dictatorship of the proletariat.
You can apply this No True Scotsman logic to capitalism, too. Its biggest fans say True capitalism has never been tried, either.