askchapo

Shoot corrupt officials.

The problem with power is that too many people want it and once they have it they don't face consequences for abusing it. The solution is to make it unappealing and risky enough to deter power seekers from acting out. No one would want to be mayor if you got potentially shot for fucking up and you made only above average pay. The only benefit would be if you actually had political convictions and goals beyond your personal enrichment.

You might get a few power seekers in the first level of leadership. You can't keep all of them out of course. But for each level higher you'll get less and less. People with political convictions are less likely to support the advancement of power-hungry assholes. The only way to significant power would be 15 years of risky, hard work with little material benefits. By that point, the ceo types would either be shot or quit to pursue more lucrative positions.

What do you mean by 'corruption'? Because U.S. is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, they just call it 'lobbying'.

I'd strongly recommend reading State and Revolution. In it, though not exhaustive measures, Lenin talks about two pretty strong systems: Instant recall democracy, and the ability of everyone to be a 'bureaucrat'.

The former is pretty straight forward, when elected officials are clearly acting fucky, people should have the ability to prompt an immediate recall election.

The second is a bit more revolutionary and fundamental, the idea was that a big reason officials are corrupt is because they end up in this weird "elite" bureaucrat class, where you can only replace them with people of a very limited education or background. His thrust was to 'democratise' qualifications, basically ensuring that huge swathes of the population have easy access to any necessary education, and to ensure that high-ranking state official positions are frequently rotated out.

The end result is that you have a lot more "average joe"s in more powerful positions, who are proficient but not part of existing corrupt networks or cultures, and are a constant breath of fresh air. Trust in the position is then built because state positions have a high participation from citizens across differing parts of society, rather than forming their own corrupt clique.

@jackmaoist@hexbear.net Would love to hear your thoughts as well.

Strong democratic mechanisms, transparency in law and practice, regular internal audits from multiple agencies, hard codified governmental policies that are widely known and will be noticed if bypassed, regular financial audits of any individuals in positions to commit corruption. Devil's in the details on anti-corruption policies. All of this is only possible if you have some forces in the state that are anti-corruption and can begin instituting these policies. If the top of political leadership is rotten then it will all rot from the head.

Having lived/worked in different environments with more homogenous or heterogenous cultural makeup, a lot of this depends on everyone having the same expectation. One reason why places like US have less (I think) is just that people are aware they can't predict anyone else's expectations or reactions. Anybody who comes from a culture of bribe or gift giving will soon get embarrassed when they attempt to do things in the normal way and the intended recipient reacts surprised, offended, maybe even reports them for bad behavior! but within these communities, bribes or gifts maybe still be expected if they can be done without attracting attention.

People give gifts of objects and consumables in addition to cash. And if the recipient is acculturated to it, these are warmly appreciated and do result in better treatment in the future. For example my friend works as an admin who controls access to stuff and the people who bring treats (especially from the preferred bakery, or quality home made) get the high preference. She can tell me about 10 years ago when this person brought a wonderful pie or something and has been forever blessed. A different person, different culture, might consider it rude for a stranger to bring food to them.

You might think, a pie is one thing, who cares about a pie. But sometimes there is jewelry, or free services at client businesses, gift cards, borrow the vacation home for the weekend, etc. There is no reason to expect cash would never be involved.

Another thing that isn't quite a bribe but is barely hidden is when the person has some sort of charity/church or side business you can donate to or patronize. Like if I also paint nails, I tell people about it at work and it can become known that whoever gets me to do their nails (and tips well) will get the most help. Or if you are contacting is, it'll help if you get some ancillary service or supplies from this business my family runs. Otherwise you might find yourself at the bottom of the list forever...

I think to some extent this is natural and human. See Debt by David graeber. But problem is, where is the line and how to enforce it. I wouldnt mind living in a world of small token gifts to acknowledge the value of other people. This is how some people adapt. I know someone who has many clients from a culture where it is mandatory to bring substantial gifts when obtaining the service he provides. My friend finds this unseemly and icky. There has arisen agreement that he will graciously accept cheap token gifts from his customers, a small fraction of the monetary value they want to give. But it still let's the ritual of gift giving be preserved.

It really depends, but we can think of three different forms of corruption:

1. Crime
2. Systemic
3. Atypical

First, crime. Crime is conflict that forms when needs are not being met by the community. For this, simply attempt to meet the needs of the community, even if it means collective suffering. In Mutual Aid: A factor in evolution, Kropotikin describes the individualistic creatures which manage to survive unusually harsh conditions. While acting selfishly (corruption) allows them to survive while all else die, these individualistic creatures will produce weaker children which will eventually die off. Additionally, those who take care of each other even to their own detriment are more likely tp produce strong offspring.

Next, systemic. This is where most corruption arises. No matter the original cause, be it malice, incompetence, or simply going unnoticed, systemic corruption will be a problem long after the cause is gone. The reason these go unaddressed is cultural. If we fear shame or punishment how can we address the problem. This must be countered, not with pride, but acceptance. Accept that revolution is not an event but a culture, and growth is a sign of life. The first step to solving a problem is admitting that it exists.

Finally, atypical. Most people are good, but some people are assholes. So we shouldn't create opportunities for assholes to gain enough power to be corrupt.

The goal is to create a system where corruption doesn't yield material reward. You give bribery as an example, which is a material reward. Remove the ability to be bribed and then the politician can't be bribed.

For one, means of production should not be purchasable by individuals. Capital is money which is used to make more money. Capital can be used to purchase the means of production and labor, and then sell the commodities produced, to receive more money. Ownership is decided by the state's use of violence; you can't just walk in and take ownership of a factory because the state will use violence against you. The state can say that individuals or capitalists are not allowed to own means of production.

For two, fiat money can be replaced with non-transferable labor vouchers. Money can be used as capital, ie money which creates more money. Rather than being payed money at your job with money, you can be payed labor credits by the state for the amount of labor that you do. These labor credits could be used to buy things at a store that you need such as food, clothing, toiletries. Similar to how food stamps are accepted at grocery stores.

Without the bourgeois state creating mechanisms for labor to be exploited, corruption becomes impossible or at least much harder to do.

I guess bribes could still be made in precious metals but then there would need to be a black market. There would have to be a punitive system for participating in the black market.

the third world corruption comes from fear of instability, and the lack of will and the lack of people who can replace the role, like if a guy who has witnessed more than 0 civil wars in his life has a job where he can't be kicked out instantly and replaced, he will not believe that there is a future where he'll get to retire, or whatever he's doing means anything at all, it's just money and power that he sees flowing that he can hold out his hand take what he can and be more important for anyone to care. Like personally I know a [Engineer] who had a corruption scandal a few years ago, his logic came from him witnessing first hand other Engineers being killed during a civil war and of their projects being abandoned and left, even after he was arrested he's still allowed to roam free because the place doesn't have many engineers as competent as him. He's a guy afraid of losing everything, believes anything he'll do is meaningless, has money go right past him, and he can't be replaced.

It takes a lot of time to actually remove corruption you need multiple generations of economic growth and stability. Authority and surveillance are nigh useless, since you'll just have corrupt anti-corruption officers.

But, I think corruption is way too overstated in the third world as an issue, all western governments are corrupt we already know that, but the thing worse than corruption is the legal privatization and selling of the country's resources to the lowest bidder yk? like have a corrupt minister buy a few Ferraris and build a mansion and the most you'll lose is a few million dollars, give away your oil to Shell and not only do you lose the money, but you lose sovernity and control over that oil well.

Lots of good answers, but to me it does boil down to force or "political power grows from the barrel of a gun". That is to say, any reform or regulation you invent ultimately requires enforcement. Especially in the beginning, while you are really trying to reprogram an entrenched 'culture' of corruption, you will need a kind of anti-corruption vanguard to identify, investigate, prosecute and punish corruption. Certainly it should be accompanied by public education campaigns and economic initiatives.

Bribing to even get basic paperwork done is common.

If the state can provide a decent life for its employees, then I think that goes a loooong way towards eliminating the sort of corruption you usually don't see in the US