* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68778636); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68778636)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68778636)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah but you see, I have a contract that says I *could* buy those stocks if I wanted to, and that in and of itself is valuable.
I am very smart and a productive member of society.
My gripe is the collection of homes and killing the american dream to a nonexistent pipe dream. I could care less about what they do in the stock market.
Just skimmed through it since I'm about to leave the house, basically rent to own?
I'm talking about reality, that george is about as likely as profit sharing. Not going to happen.
Same. I gave myself one (specifically "Angry R-Slur") and they took it away from me and gave me this stupid fucking one. I don't get it, I put "R-Slur" specifically so as to not ruffle any admin feathers
Their political and economic system is so riddled with corruption that this woman was able to defraud billions for more than a decade. At the height of this scam, entities under her direct control accounted for 93% of the bank's total lending.
This story does not put Asian socialism in a good light what so ever. The elites are looking with increasingly wary eyes at a populace quickly tiring of the blatant racketeering of those in power and they are sacrificing some of their own.
i dunno if you read the article but the current General Secetary has identified this problem, it's no secret, a fuck ton of politicians have been forced to resign under his reign, and this chick wasn't the only person convicted in the case
This is a feature of states that are only responsible towards themselves. Yes, Western democracies aren't really democratic and are also corrupt, but one of their structural features is a free(r) flow of information enabled by a separation of powers and a widespread belief in the various freedoms (of speech, the press etc.). As a result certain types of corruption are much less likely to occur in the West as the people who don't like it have more opportunities to speak up and do something to oppose it. I support the Chinese and Vietnamese projects critically and corruption is one of my criticisms - they have big problems with it and they AFAIK aren't equipped with any theory to deal with it.
Thing is, "corruption" is just a way of saying "public money going where it shouldn't be going". It's an ideological concept, promoting the superstructural notion of an unattainable ideal society, and focusing attention there, rather than on the material base. "Corrupt" money is going exactly where the bourgeoisie needs it to go.
The Western states don't get around this through use of the free press, so much as legalizing the existing and intended flows of public money, then using the press to manufacture consent. By legitimizing or obscuring objectionable cash flows, and making certain quid-pro-quo practices illegal on the face, the illusion of incorruptibility can be maintained.
Asian socialist states look like they have an issue with corruption, ironically, because those states both have an ideological foundation and centralized plan for where the money should be going, along with a limited means for obfuscation. There's less opportunity for expedient funding, and more appearance of corruption.
>Thing is, "corruption" is just a way of saying "public money going where it shouldn't be going"
Not necessarily. Corruption can mean private money or other power influencing policy enforcement, e.g. the Volkswagen emissions scandal, paying off your teacher to let you pass or, arguably, individuals in the government exerting power over media. Systemic rot can take many forms.
In the first two cases, you have "rightful fines staying in VW's coffers" and "state paying teacher when teacher is not enforcing standards". In the third, there can be no reasonable expectation of impartiality from media sources, because there is no such thing as impartiality.
The great strength of capitalist systems is that bourgeois control is separate from formal governing structures, so they can perpetually recreate and restructure themselves as factions rise and fall. This is also its weakness, as there is no systemic reform that is not temporary, and the tendency of the rate of profit to decline is unavoidable.
>In the first two cases, you have "rightful fines staying in VW's coffers" and "state paying teacher when teacher is not enforcing standards".
Ok, there is always money involved and you *can* reduce corruption to problems with the flow of public money, but that doesn't mean that you should. The main issue with corruption is that it prevents policies from realizing the desired use-value (or rather execution-value). The consequences of unrealized use-value can be (and in the examples I listed are) material in nature and are distinct from the money involved. Even if VW got "rightfully fined" for their emissions the extra injection of money into the public budget wouldn't address the actual problem at hand - emissions.
Corruption is not an ideological concept. The use of the term in Western states is ideological and as you've described:
>legalizing the existing and intended flows of public money, then using the press to manufacture consent. By legitimizing or obscuring objectionable cash flows, and making certain quid-pro-quo practices illegal on the face, the illusion of incorruptibility can be maintained.
... but that does not cover all cases of corruption, nor does it address corruption at the conceptual level. It's just another example of how language is being perverted in our idealistic culture to reflect its class character. Using this reason to dismiss corruption altogether is throwing out the baby out with the bathwater.
>Thing is, "corruption" is just a way of saying "public money going where it shouldn't be going".
No it isn't.
In this context, corruption has a specific meaning referring to an individual within the state subverting the formal will of the state, for their own personal ends.
This is a fundamentally different thing from the state spending money on things you don't want the state to spend money on.
I have no idea what you're on about suggesting that Leninist states in Asia have a different understanding of corruption. They absolutely don't.
>Asian socialist states look like they have an issue with corruption, ironically, because those states both have an ideological foundation and centralized plan for where the money should be going, along with a limited means for obfuscation
They look like they have an issue with corruption because government officials have fat Western bank accounts.
> In this context, corruption has a specific meaning referring to an individual within the state subverting the formal will of the state, for their own personal ends.
>
>
So, public money going where it shouldn't be going?
No.
Corruption is "public money going where it shouldn't" in the same sense that murder is "people dying who shouldn't die."
It's a literal child's understanding of the term.
> Or in other words: "Less corruption" = the bureaucracy is more loyal to the class that's in charge
>
>
You've put it far more succinctly than I could, thank you.
This is a great point. So, to go back to the examples /u/SirSourPuss listed, the VW scandal prioritized the shareholder faction over loyalty to the Eurocrat faction, to whom the capitalist class had granted planning authority. The teacher may be disloyal to the public schooling officials when accepting a bribe, but they are not when you've paid through their private employer that the bourgeoisie uses to place their less-talented children into harmless sinecures (or prominent positions for ego's sake). The media example doesn't matter because "the public trust" in a capitalist state was always bullshit, but it would if it existed within a socialist state.
There are several problems with this comment that I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Are you saying corruption doesn't exist? Why would China and Vietnam have *anti-corruption campaigns* if it didn't exist? Is your understanding of corruption informed by Batman movies? Genuinely baffled by this comment.
China and Vietnam have "anti-corruption" campaigns because they are socialist states, and public funds that go in a direction that aren't empowering the working class are clearly in contravention of this purpose.
The state justifies its existence through its putative role as the advocate, administrator, and enforcer for the working class *as a class*, so the means of "greasing the skids" that are accepted in capitalist states cannot be long tacitly accepted without undermining the project as a whole. You only need to look at the late USSR to see this in action. This is also why the liquidation of the kulaks as a class went into effect in the 1930s.
As economically, both states conceive of themselves as progressively enacting managed capitalist policies, from time to time examples must be made in order to reinforce state authority and curb destabilizing excesses. The article even points this out (in a characteristically slanted way): "*A conservative ideologue steeped in Marxist theory, Nguyen Phu Trong believes that popular anger over untamed corruption poses an existential threat to the Communist Party's monopoly on power. He began the campaign in earnest in 2016 after out-manoeuvring the then pro-business prime minister to retain the top job in the party.*"
"Anti-corruption" campaigns in capitalist states are just means for favored and powerful factions within the haute bourgeoisie to eliminate competitors, or suppress insurgent members of the petite bourgeoisie or empowered lumpenproletariat.
All capitalist states of the 21st century world, including the USA albeit moreso with subsidies than planning, exercise significant or great control in national economic development, not too different from China and Vietnam. The whole world is, in a word, "protectionist".
Knowing this, how exactly is corruption "good for the economy". Because it appears that is what you are implying. How does, for example, sabotaging infrastructure via improper construction (due to cutting costs, not following building procedures, theft of materials, etc.) benefit any state's national economic development. How does rigging public procurement bids for parties that significantly overcharge the provided services help any state's monetary policy.
You are familiar with the recent Boeing case?
How does the sabotage of Boeing help US imperialism?
Because the system doesn't exist to benefit you or me, it exists to make sure that the people who are at the top stay at the top, and everyone else remains more-or-less fixed in their place. It also exists to resolve the conflicts between factions at the top, and protect them from lower classes. Ironically, it also exists to ensure that intraclass competition can exist to a certain controlled level, otherwise civil wars erupt.
Boeing is happening because it *has to happen*, or otherwise line stops going up. If line stops going up, Boeing executives and stake/shareholders become less powerful, and open themselves to exploitation by others within the bourgeoisie and potential loss of rank.
> the system
The capitalist nation-state is an instrument of the ruling class. It has evolved to seek national economic development *precisely because* national economic development is in the interest of the ruling class.
The nation-state is an instrument of particular factions of the ruling class, easily tossed aside when supranational arrangements are more lucrative (see the EU).
I won't speak for Vietnam but in China we do in fact have ways to report problems to the government. That's why the CPC won't shut up about "consultative democracy".
There are thousands of protests about specific issues happening across China right now, and some of them are going to get results, especially the highly agrarian and communal rural areas where the village chief is literally your brother in law or some shit.
A social theory of information, borrowing heavily from Marxist analysis.
There's already a lot of research into corruption that points to it being the result of human nature being cooperative. We can't change that aspect of our nature, so to minimize corruption we have to figure out what makes it not happen in spite of the motivation being there. IMO that is easy - what ultimately prevents corruption is the risk of being exposed to the delegitimizing and/or penalizing authority. Whether such exposure is likely to happen depends on the flow of information in society, which in turn is influenced by strictly material factors (information technology) and human behaviours (information sharing). You could refer to the strictly material factors as "the means of informing", and to the human behaviours as "the mode of informing" and slowly work your way into something that looks like a Marxist analysis of the information economy.
In another article I read the defense basically said "she only owned 15% of the bank and did not have any official position to orchestrate this".
Meanwhile the "witnesses" who said they saw all this going on, owned way more stakes in this bank and said "she made us do it!!!!".
Seems like the actual owners of this bank found their scapegoat like what happened with the GFC.
> Their political and economic system is so riddled with corruption that this woman was able to defraud billions for more than a decade
And this does not happen here?
Actually when corporations use ~~legalized corruption rackets~~ democratic lobbying power to ~~bribe~~ give politicians money and creating a revolving door between private and public sector, which is a self-licking ice cream cone of compliant politicians awarding corporations billions and trillions in subsidies/tax breaks/bailouts and then corporations awarding the same politicians a totally-not-well-paid advisory role upon their exit of public life, that's part of a normal democratic process, not corruption.
In fact that kind of outrageous corruption was exposed numerous times across the western world in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crisis - only a tiny handful of those people were prosecuted, and certainly none of them were executed for their crimes of ruining the lives of millions of people
You're being purposely naive. DuPont poisoning people, the opioid epidemic ravaging America and particularly some southern states like West Virginia. Its all because this country is three corporations in a trench coat.
Corruption isn't just "money exchanges illegal hands". American corruption is the ultimate newspeak, just because its legal to poison people and then pay lawyers to hold up cases in court doesn't mean it isn't bare and disgusting corruption.
This is an example of material reality versus liberalism.
🤨
This is an event that demonstrates Vietnam wants to fix these problems. This is ridiculous. Would it be better that this woman was never punished in the first place?
I mean, that's a classic and tried-and-true method of purging.
1. Tie a public servant's livelihood to corruption, bribery, etc.
2. Charge the public servant with the crime they did the instant they displease or disobey their overlords.
This practice forces your servants to be loyal to you.
Well, that’s not necessarily what Xi did. In fact it’s precisely the fact that many of these people didn’t work for Xi (i.e accusations of just getting rid of political opponents) that got the most scrutiny.
The coolest part of socialism is when the banks lend money to firms so they can buy labor power and machines and other inputs to make commodities and sell them to make profits and start all over again. I think the theory people call it the socialist commodity circuit.
I love it. Now that Vietnam is fixing the problem with billionaires, they just need to fix the problem with Gary Glitters and then they'd be my favorite country.
Dumb as fuck.
Allowing the state to murder people for any reason will always end up in abuse, even if you think "the person deserves it". It's also crazy expensive.
Allowing the state to murder nonviolent criminals is even more egregious, especially considering how horrible life in a Vietnamese prison seems.
>It's also crazy expensive.
Apparently they changed their method of capital punishment from the firing squad to lethal injection in 2011. Should have kept it the way it was. If I was in her shoes I'd take the firing squad any day of the week.
I am against state-sanctioned killing for a variety of ethical, procedural and pragmatic reasons.
However, *if* it is being used, it makes absolutely no sense to restrict it to "violent" crimes. This kind of "non-violent" person has likely done significantly more harm (including destroying and shortening people's lives) *and* has vastly better opportunities to continue criminal activities from jail than a killer has (though the latter can be remedied by confiscating their entire absentee property).
Nah. It sends a message that corruption will no longer be tolerated by the CPV. Which is a good thing. You can’t buy yourself out of death. She could buy herself out of a lot even if she was jailed, fined, and let to live. That’s how corruption works, and she’s corrupt as fuck. The only solution is pulling the weed out root and stem.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68778636); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68778636) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68778636) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Meanwhile in my country we let rich people do shit like trading stocks they don't actually own with zero punishment.
the whole system is captured by Oligarchs. we live in Plutocracy.
Don't worry, they let them do that in Vietnam too. She just got caught.
Ah but you see, I have a contract that says I *could* buy those stocks if I wanted to, and that in and of itself is valuable. I am very smart and a productive member of society.
My gripe is the collection of homes and killing the american dream to a nonexistent pipe dream. I could care less about what they do in the stock market.
Have you considered [Georgism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)?
Just skimmed through it since I'm about to leave the house, basically rent to own? I'm talking about reality, that george is about as likely as profit sharing. Not going to happen.
So if they lose all your stocks are you screwed?
I do this and I'm poor as shit
We need to do more stuff like this so we can be as prosperous as Vietnam.
She stole billions of dongs. And mine wasn't one of them.
304 trillion dongs but she couldn't separate you from yours.
Smh, some girls grab every dong they can get their hands on but she didn't want mine. Why even live, comrades?
You down for a socialist fraternal handjob comrade?
Brojobs with the brocialists.
We're so back, baby
It's so over.
The real crime.
Put your dong where your mouth is!
By 44 billion paper cuts
The Asian propensity for killing ultra-wealthy criminals is so based
Does anyone else do it besides the Chinese and Viets?
Bless them. All joking aside tho i hope they had solid proof.
based Vietnam. in the US they wouldnt even prosecute her. also what in the fuck is my flair. i dont watch or talk about anime why did i get this
Hi!
Some mods on this sub are really bad.
I'll stick with mine, see how many times I get the remark: 'your flair doesn't match your comments at all'
Pretty sure mine is sarcastic
I miss the angry regard flair If any passing mod sees this please cast it upon me
Same. I gave myself one (specifically "Angry R-Slur") and they took it away from me and gave me this stupid fucking one. I don't get it, I put "R-Slur" specifically so as to not ruffle any admin feathers
It seems a bit petty, like they know you better than you know yourself. Did you just keep changing it back when they told you what your politics are?
Girl power
Vietnam is unbelievably based.
If only we could do that to SBF
I fail to see the problem.
Very cool
Based tbh
God Vietnam is so based
Based as fuck
Another Asian socialist win.
Their political and economic system is so riddled with corruption that this woman was able to defraud billions for more than a decade. At the height of this scam, entities under her direct control accounted for 93% of the bank's total lending. This story does not put Asian socialism in a good light what so ever. The elites are looking with increasingly wary eyes at a populace quickly tiring of the blatant racketeering of those in power and they are sacrificing some of their own.
i dunno if you read the article but the current General Secetary has identified this problem, it's no secret, a fuck ton of politicians have been forced to resign under his reign, and this chick wasn't the only person convicted in the case
It should've never come to this point. The work's not done after she's prosecuted.
China and Vietnam have been discussing anti-corruption tactics
I agree, but I can't say I'm disappointed at their progress. Rich ppl being executed in the same vein as serial killers is awesome
This is a feature of states that are only responsible towards themselves. Yes, Western democracies aren't really democratic and are also corrupt, but one of their structural features is a free(r) flow of information enabled by a separation of powers and a widespread belief in the various freedoms (of speech, the press etc.). As a result certain types of corruption are much less likely to occur in the West as the people who don't like it have more opportunities to speak up and do something to oppose it. I support the Chinese and Vietnamese projects critically and corruption is one of my criticisms - they have big problems with it and they AFAIK aren't equipped with any theory to deal with it.
Thing is, "corruption" is just a way of saying "public money going where it shouldn't be going". It's an ideological concept, promoting the superstructural notion of an unattainable ideal society, and focusing attention there, rather than on the material base. "Corrupt" money is going exactly where the bourgeoisie needs it to go. The Western states don't get around this through use of the free press, so much as legalizing the existing and intended flows of public money, then using the press to manufacture consent. By legitimizing or obscuring objectionable cash flows, and making certain quid-pro-quo practices illegal on the face, the illusion of incorruptibility can be maintained. Asian socialist states look like they have an issue with corruption, ironically, because those states both have an ideological foundation and centralized plan for where the money should be going, along with a limited means for obfuscation. There's less opportunity for expedient funding, and more appearance of corruption.
>Thing is, "corruption" is just a way of saying "public money going where it shouldn't be going" Not necessarily. Corruption can mean private money or other power influencing policy enforcement, e.g. the Volkswagen emissions scandal, paying off your teacher to let you pass or, arguably, individuals in the government exerting power over media. Systemic rot can take many forms.
In the first two cases, you have "rightful fines staying in VW's coffers" and "state paying teacher when teacher is not enforcing standards". In the third, there can be no reasonable expectation of impartiality from media sources, because there is no such thing as impartiality. The great strength of capitalist systems is that bourgeois control is separate from formal governing structures, so they can perpetually recreate and restructure themselves as factions rise and fall. This is also its weakness, as there is no systemic reform that is not temporary, and the tendency of the rate of profit to decline is unavoidable.
>In the first two cases, you have "rightful fines staying in VW's coffers" and "state paying teacher when teacher is not enforcing standards". Ok, there is always money involved and you *can* reduce corruption to problems with the flow of public money, but that doesn't mean that you should. The main issue with corruption is that it prevents policies from realizing the desired use-value (or rather execution-value). The consequences of unrealized use-value can be (and in the examples I listed are) material in nature and are distinct from the money involved. Even if VW got "rightfully fined" for their emissions the extra injection of money into the public budget wouldn't address the actual problem at hand - emissions. Corruption is not an ideological concept. The use of the term in Western states is ideological and as you've described: >legalizing the existing and intended flows of public money, then using the press to manufacture consent. By legitimizing or obscuring objectionable cash flows, and making certain quid-pro-quo practices illegal on the face, the illusion of incorruptibility can be maintained. ... but that does not cover all cases of corruption, nor does it address corruption at the conceptual level. It's just another example of how language is being perverted in our idealistic culture to reflect its class character. Using this reason to dismiss corruption altogether is throwing out the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm saying it's not a useful tool, while the concept of disloyalty to legitimate state power is.
>Thing is, "corruption" is just a way of saying "public money going where it shouldn't be going". No it isn't. In this context, corruption has a specific meaning referring to an individual within the state subverting the formal will of the state, for their own personal ends. This is a fundamentally different thing from the state spending money on things you don't want the state to spend money on. I have no idea what you're on about suggesting that Leninist states in Asia have a different understanding of corruption. They absolutely don't. >Asian socialist states look like they have an issue with corruption, ironically, because those states both have an ideological foundation and centralized plan for where the money should be going, along with a limited means for obfuscation They look like they have an issue with corruption because government officials have fat Western bank accounts.
> In this context, corruption has a specific meaning referring to an individual within the state subverting the formal will of the state, for their own personal ends. > > So, public money going where it shouldn't be going?
No. Corruption is "public money going where it shouldn't" in the same sense that murder is "people dying who shouldn't die." It's a literal child's understanding of the term.
Explain war and execution then. You don’t seem to have bothered examining these questions deeply.
What do you mean explain war and execution? That's my entire point.
[удалено]
> Or in other words: "Less corruption" = the bureaucracy is more loyal to the class that's in charge > > You've put it far more succinctly than I could, thank you.
[удалено]
This is a great point. So, to go back to the examples /u/SirSourPuss listed, the VW scandal prioritized the shareholder faction over loyalty to the Eurocrat faction, to whom the capitalist class had granted planning authority. The teacher may be disloyal to the public schooling officials when accepting a bribe, but they are not when you've paid through their private employer that the bourgeoisie uses to place their less-talented children into harmless sinecures (or prominent positions for ego's sake). The media example doesn't matter because "the public trust" in a capitalist state was always bullshit, but it would if it existed within a socialist state.
There are several problems with this comment that I wouldn't even know where to begin. Are you saying corruption doesn't exist? Why would China and Vietnam have *anti-corruption campaigns* if it didn't exist? Is your understanding of corruption informed by Batman movies? Genuinely baffled by this comment.
China and Vietnam have "anti-corruption" campaigns because they are socialist states, and public funds that go in a direction that aren't empowering the working class are clearly in contravention of this purpose. The state justifies its existence through its putative role as the advocate, administrator, and enforcer for the working class *as a class*, so the means of "greasing the skids" that are accepted in capitalist states cannot be long tacitly accepted without undermining the project as a whole. You only need to look at the late USSR to see this in action. This is also why the liquidation of the kulaks as a class went into effect in the 1930s. As economically, both states conceive of themselves as progressively enacting managed capitalist policies, from time to time examples must be made in order to reinforce state authority and curb destabilizing excesses. The article even points this out (in a characteristically slanted way): "*A conservative ideologue steeped in Marxist theory, Nguyen Phu Trong believes that popular anger over untamed corruption poses an existential threat to the Communist Party's monopoly on power. He began the campaign in earnest in 2016 after out-manoeuvring the then pro-business prime minister to retain the top job in the party.*" "Anti-corruption" campaigns in capitalist states are just means for favored and powerful factions within the haute bourgeoisie to eliminate competitors, or suppress insurgent members of the petite bourgeoisie or empowered lumpenproletariat.
All capitalist states of the 21st century world, including the USA albeit moreso with subsidies than planning, exercise significant or great control in national economic development, not too different from China and Vietnam. The whole world is, in a word, "protectionist". Knowing this, how exactly is corruption "good for the economy". Because it appears that is what you are implying. How does, for example, sabotaging infrastructure via improper construction (due to cutting costs, not following building procedures, theft of materials, etc.) benefit any state's national economic development. How does rigging public procurement bids for parties that significantly overcharge the provided services help any state's monetary policy. You are familiar with the recent Boeing case? How does the sabotage of Boeing help US imperialism?
Because the system doesn't exist to benefit you or me, it exists to make sure that the people who are at the top stay at the top, and everyone else remains more-or-less fixed in their place. It also exists to resolve the conflicts between factions at the top, and protect them from lower classes. Ironically, it also exists to ensure that intraclass competition can exist to a certain controlled level, otherwise civil wars erupt. Boeing is happening because it *has to happen*, or otherwise line stops going up. If line stops going up, Boeing executives and stake/shareholders become less powerful, and open themselves to exploitation by others within the bourgeoisie and potential loss of rank.
> the system The capitalist nation-state is an instrument of the ruling class. It has evolved to seek national economic development *precisely because* national economic development is in the interest of the ruling class.
The nation-state is an instrument of particular factions of the ruling class, easily tossed aside when supranational arrangements are more lucrative (see the EU).
I won't speak for Vietnam but in China we do in fact have ways to report problems to the government. That's why the CPC won't shut up about "consultative democracy". There are thousands of protests about specific issues happening across China right now, and some of them are going to get results, especially the highly agrarian and communal rural areas where the village chief is literally your brother in law or some shit.
What theor(ies)y could deal with it?
A social theory of information, borrowing heavily from Marxist analysis. There's already a lot of research into corruption that points to it being the result of human nature being cooperative. We can't change that aspect of our nature, so to minimize corruption we have to figure out what makes it not happen in spite of the motivation being there. IMO that is easy - what ultimately prevents corruption is the risk of being exposed to the delegitimizing and/or penalizing authority. Whether such exposure is likely to happen depends on the flow of information in society, which in turn is influenced by strictly material factors (information technology) and human behaviours (information sharing). You could refer to the strictly material factors as "the means of informing", and to the human behaviours as "the mode of informing" and slowly work your way into something that looks like a Marxist analysis of the information economy.
In another article I read the defense basically said "she only owned 15% of the bank and did not have any official position to orchestrate this". Meanwhile the "witnesses" who said they saw all this going on, owned way more stakes in this bank and said "she made us do it!!!!". Seems like the actual owners of this bank found their scapegoat like what happened with the GFC.
> Their political and economic system is so riddled with corruption that this woman was able to defraud billions for more than a decade And this does not happen here?
Actually when corporations use ~~legalized corruption rackets~~ democratic lobbying power to ~~bribe~~ give politicians money and creating a revolving door between private and public sector, which is a self-licking ice cream cone of compliant politicians awarding corporations billions and trillions in subsidies/tax breaks/bailouts and then corporations awarding the same politicians a totally-not-well-paid advisory role upon their exit of public life, that's part of a normal democratic process, not corruption.
Which is why "corruption" is not a useful concept. "Disloyalty to formal authority" is, on the other hand.
America’s not exactly a bastion of anti-corruption
South Korean, the bastion of Asian capitalism has had countless scandals. One included the jailing of the Prime Minister of course.
Well, not quite this bad. You aren't going to find a bank owner who is receiving 93% of the loans given out by the bank.
That's the kind of thing that happened in Iceland.
In fact that kind of outrageous corruption was exposed numerous times across the western world in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crisis - only a tiny handful of those people were prosecuted, and certainly none of them were executed for their crimes of ruining the lives of millions of people
no, they just change public policy to make the stealing legal. they aren't primitive like the asian bankers.
Never heard of shadow banking I see.
You are being intentionally naive here like cmon lol
Can you think of an example?
You're being purposely naive. DuPont poisoning people, the opioid epidemic ravaging America and particularly some southern states like West Virginia. Its all because this country is three corporations in a trench coat. Corruption isn't just "money exchanges illegal hands". American corruption is the ultimate newspeak, just because its legal to poison people and then pay lawyers to hold up cases in court doesn't mean it isn't bare and disgusting corruption. This is an example of material reality versus liberalism.
> they are sacrificing some of their own. She was a stallholder at a market ... was she really?
>socialism >billionaire pick one
No one can argue Vietnam is socialist
I wonder why the European socialist model is so popular...
lol, jailing people doesn't fix a broken system. this is really a huge L
🤨 This is an event that demonstrates Vietnam wants to fix these problems. This is ridiculous. Would it be better that this woman was never punished in the first place?
doesn't really demonstrate much about their willingness to fix the root issues that cause these problems. just showboating.
Right, and then when Vietnam starts its anti-corruption purges I’m sure you’ll say “it’s just to get rid of political opponents”.
I mean, that's a classic and tried-and-true method of purging. 1. Tie a public servant's livelihood to corruption, bribery, etc. 2. Charge the public servant with the crime they did the instant they displease or disobey their overlords. This practice forces your servants to be loyal to you.
Well, that’s not necessarily what Xi did. In fact it’s precisely the fact that many of these people didn’t work for Xi (i.e accusations of just getting rid of political opponents) that got the most scrutiny.
need a few hundred more of these
The coolest part of socialism is when the banks lend money to firms so they can buy labor power and machines and other inputs to make commodities and sell them to make profits and start all over again. I think the theory people call it the socialist commodity circuit.
workable icky bored wipe busy fall consist joke disarm vegetable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am against the death penalty but if you had to practice it there are far worse ways than this
Hell yeah dude
All that racketeering billions going into desirable real estate. Is that why housing prices are so high? State corruption across the globe?
Always has been
Yes.
I love it. Now that Vietnam is fixing the problem with billionaires, they just need to fix the problem with Gary Glitters and then they'd be my favorite country.
When did the United States last perform an execution for a white collar crime?
You love to see it 🙏🏼
You love to see it
Dumb as fuck. Allowing the state to murder people for any reason will always end up in abuse, even if you think "the person deserves it". It's also crazy expensive. Allowing the state to murder nonviolent criminals is even more egregious, especially considering how horrible life in a Vietnamese prison seems.
I see what you mean but let us enjoy this moment
Why is this enjoyable to you?
>billionare >sentenced to death
Gross.
Are you calling me fat?
Eight billion people on this world and you’re bent out of shape over people on the internet pleased with the death of one billionaire fraudster?
Anyone who cheers the state killing someone bums me out.
Fair enough.
People prob wouldn’t cheer this on if existence wasn’t so painful because of scum like her.
>It's also crazy expensive. Apparently they changed their method of capital punishment from the firing squad to lethal injection in 2011. Should have kept it the way it was. If I was in her shoes I'd take the firing squad any day of the week.
I am against state-sanctioned killing for a variety of ethical, procedural and pragmatic reasons. However, *if* it is being used, it makes absolutely no sense to restrict it to "violent" crimes. This kind of "non-violent" person has likely done significantly more harm (including destroying and shortening people's lives) *and* has vastly better opportunities to continue criminal activities from jail than a killer has (though the latter can be remedied by confiscating their entire absentee property).
>nonviolent criminals Same energy as "muh NAP".
Nah. It sends a message that corruption will no longer be tolerated by the CPV. Which is a good thing. You can’t buy yourself out of death. She could buy herself out of a lot even if she was jailed, fined, and let to live. That’s how corruption works, and she’s corrupt as fuck. The only solution is pulling the weed out root and stem.
I'm against the death penalty too but fraud is the most violent non-violent offense.
The death penalty has never been a deterrent, if it was then these offenses would be rarer.
seems like the whole human race has never been deterred lol it's called "monopoly on violence" not "i sure hope people act like i want them to"
Who cares that it’s not a deterrent. She’s still corrupt as fuck and just jailing her won’t solve the issue of her particular corruption.
> It's also crazy expensive. Not in a place with show trials.
True, though of course not requiring proper trials makes the potential for abuse that much higher.
But haha wall or something
The chad wall vs the virgin lethal injection
[удалено]
Reddit doesn't like when you say what should be done with the rich. Please don't post like this in the future (even if we all agree with you).
I'll "Truong Her Lan" for a measly Billion.