My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit.
Indeed a "proper" democracy seems to be a lot more resilient against corruption, although I wonder if it's more to do with the society's cohesiveness, e.g. in Scandinavia. Then again the crazies like to call Scandinavia "a socialist hell hole", so maybe even socialism can be done right if you have the right society...
> My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit.
It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect. I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity, but few people are, and I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process, even if you forewarn them.
> It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect.
What is "it" here?
> I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity
Of what? I'm guessing the complexity of the conversation?
> I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process
I'm wary of asking for "try me" and ending up doing this, and wary that this warning means whatever it is people called foul about is something you're getting wrong but insist you're right on, without ever reflecting about others' opinions/their foul call.
How about that for meta...
Ah you're the original "maybe we need to redefine a lot of words" commenter. Sigh, I think your mistake is believing what it says on the tin/the dictionary definition, on things like "we are ruled by democracy [or communism, pick your poison]"
Indeed a "proper" democracy seems to be a lot more resilient against corruption, although I wonder if it's more to do with the society's cohesiveness, e.g. in Scandinavia. Then again the crazies like to call Scandinavia "a socialist hell hole", so maybe even socialism can be done right if you have the right society...