The Root: Africans in China Say Police Have Told Them to Stop Sharing Stories About Racial Discrimination

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Well, obviously.

Ok, I'm not fond of hasty judgements, but the way you've presented and worded yourself gives a distinct impression that the lottery of life has given you a fairly comfortable space of existence and perception within this particular system, to feel obligated to defend it the way you do. Whether that's the case or not, I garuntee you my life has been created and raised in the dirtiest most poverty ridden way it could be. This system forces desperate people into cunts. Sometimes it's people just wanting to survive, sometimes just cunts wanting to be cunts. I've broken laws many times just to fucking survive and I ain't proud of it, it was either that or starve. Also the car analogy may not serve you the way you'd hope when the majority of modern research is pointing towards automation as the safest method of transportation because as always the human element cannot be fucking trusted.
You are not wrong with your assessment but notice I didn't mention anything about punishment. In general I don't think harsh punishment does anything to act as a deterrent, I think that just being caught and reprimanded tends to be more effective. Knowing that you will most likely get caught doing something is more effective then thinking you will probably get away without being caught but if you are caught the results are dire. Ultimately I am in favor of a pretty good social safety net since being stuck in a bad situation sucks and sometimes there is no good way out of one. The only time I am in favor of really brutal punishment is for corruption from a public office, such as a cop planting evidence or an elected official lining their pockets while the municipal water supply gets poisoned, depending on the level of what was done I almost favor public execution for that kind of thing, not as a deterrent but to show that such actions are not allowed in society and to restore the public trust. (although like all things that could be abused so *fart noise*) I still think the car analogy works but I think the birth control/sex education example works better.
 

Sneed's SeednFeed

Elite Member
Apr 10, 2020
267
97
33
Country
Azerbaijan
You can view things like that but ultimately it is vacuous since everything can work like that, people who are against sex education or contraception are, at least partially, because they think it will lead to more sex and more degenerate sex.



The presence of rules does almost nothing to dissuade a behavior, you need enforcement of those rules and for people breaking those rules to actually be caught and held accountable.
Yeah, and guess who gets bribed? The enforcers. Hell, if not, someone's gonna set up a business selling golden visas for easy tax-dodging. Until you clamp down everywhere in the world at once, make everyone accountable either through totalitarianism (which as the Soviet Union and China showed, don't work, the most you can do is tax sub-legal trade as an incorporative measure) make everyone so satisfied with their lot in life that they're either dicks willing to clamp down on the slightest breach (again, totalitarianism, with a capital face) or make state agencies so well funded so as to not have anyone escape their jurisdiction (which again, good luck without international cooperation and achieving such levels of funding and efficiency under capitalism) or, you could do what we have in the world, and that is enforce what you can but otherwise turn a blind eye to it, or just enable obscene levels of accumulation by justifying it under 'trickle-down' economics. In which case people will become desperate, cheat and do dirty things to aspire to that level and that's where we arrive at the current situation. Nevermind the fact also that tax dodgers are often not just individuals, but entire companies, the taxing and billing thereof would costs loads to the state to carry out because they'll hire the best lawyers on the planet to get their way, to defer the case and to otherwise get away with it.

I personally see it as a game. And at no point did I claim that rules wouldn't have enforcement, it's just that up to this point, the enforcement does nothing to curb the structural problems associated with the production system we have, as the actually relevant mode of production. It's irrelevant if it happened across history - the corruption we're talking about in the OP and how it factors into China's operations in East Africa is under capitalism.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Yeah, and guess who gets bribed? The enforcers. Hell, if not, someone's gonna set up a business selling golden visas for easy tax-dodging. Until you clamp down everywhere in the world at once, make everyone accountable either through totalitarianism (which as the Soviet Union and China showed, don't work, the most you can do is tax sub-legal trade as an incorporative measure) make everyone so satisfied with their lot in life that they're either dicks willing to clamp down on the slightest breach (again, totalitarianism, with a capital face) or make state agencies so well funded so as to not have anyone escape their jurisdiction (which again, good luck without international cooperation and achieving such levels of funding and efficiency under capitalism) or, you could do what we have in the world, and that is enforce what you can but otherwise turn a blind eye to it, or just enable obscene levels of accumulation by justifying it under 'trickle-down' economics. In which case people will become desperate, cheat and do dirty things to aspire to that level and that's where we arrive at the current situation. Nevermind the fact also that tax dodgers are often not just individuals, but entire companies, the taxing and billing thereof would costs loads to the state to carry out because they'll hire the best lawyers on the planet to get their way, to defer the case and to otherwise get away with it.

I personally see it as a game. And at no point did I claim that rules wouldn't have enforcement, it's just that up to this point, the enforcement does nothing to curb the structural problems associated with the production system we have, as the actually relevant mode of production. It's irrelevant if it happened across history - the corruption we're talking about in the OP and how it factors into China's operations in East Africa is under capitalism.
Multi-national trade agreements make it much easier to punish business or countries that are acting badly.
 

Sneed's SeednFeed

Elite Member
Apr 10, 2020
267
97
33
Country
Azerbaijan
Multi-national trade agreements make it much easier to punish business or countries that are acting badly.
Right, except they've currently been hampered by a lack of enforcement or a lack of global agreement (just look at the WTO). Hell, the Panama Papers and every such leak show that tax evasion is systematic, that there's always gonna be some country where people can exploit freely, get golden visas, etc. By the time something gets enforced and recuperated, years, if not decades can pass by before that money gets 'recovered' - by which point the company or the individual in question doesn't have to give a shit since they can be sufficiently wealthy enough that it won't impact them beyond a scandal. Unless you want totalitarianism. Once again - structural factors.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Right, except they've currently been hampered by a lack of enforcement or a lack of global agreement (just look at the WTO). Hell, the Panama Papers and every such leak show that tax evasion is systematic, that there's always gonna be some country where people can exploit freely, get golden visas, etc. By the time something gets enforced and recuperated, years, if not decades can pass by before that money gets 'recovered' - by which point the company or the individual in question doesn't have to give a shit since they can be sufficiently wealthy enough that it won't impact them beyond a scandal. Unless you want totalitarianism. Once again - structural factors.
That's where proper enforcement comes from. You not only need good people for an enforcement agency, but you also need the proper funding to get the talent that is good enough to out smart those trying to get away with things like that.
 

Sneed's SeednFeed

Elite Member
Apr 10, 2020
267
97
33
Country
Azerbaijan
That's where proper enforcement comes from. You not only need good people for an enforcement agency, but you also need the proper funding to get the talent that is good enough to out smart those trying to get away with things like that.
I think the fact that you don't address the structural aspects that keep generating corruption is pretty worrysome - but I addressed the concept of funding. I don't know where you live but this thread is also specifically about Africa, and as someone from a post-Soviet state, even getting to the point where tax-dodging is the only thing the government has to worry about is paved with systematic negligence, dead bodies and corrupt parties. I think your philosophy is dangerously close to enforcing a totalitarian clamp-down, and even in cases where the state seems to have absolute power, like China, corruption is inevitable and is structurally undermining the state constantly. And you cannot claim that Chinese enforcement is not well-motivated, well-funded and legally backed when it comes to clamping down.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I think the fact that you don't address the structural aspects that keep generating corruption is pretty worrysome - but I addressed the concept of funding. I don't know where you live but this thread is also specifically about Africa, and as someone from a post-Soviet state, even getting to the point where tax-dodging is the only thing the government has to worry about is paved with systematic negligence, dead bodies and corrupt parties. I think your philosophy is dangerously close to enforcing a totalitarian clamp-down, and even in cases where the state seems to have absolute power, like China, corruption is inevitable and is structurally undermining the state constantly. And you cannot claim that Chinese enforcement is not well-motivated, well-funded and legally backed when it comes to clamping down.
When did I not do that? Keeping your leaders honest is the biggest step towards stamping out corruption and again, that goes into proper enforcement and oversight.

Also, while China has a lot of sway in Africa, it can't just do whatever it wants, it still has to adhere to the culture no matter how much money it throws at things.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Ah but here's where we run into a problem - what would be corruption when excluding wealth? (Though in fairness I was talking about material gain - wealth being a part of it, so are things like small things, lands, etc. tangible physical things) I don't see for example how corruption would manifest in terms of social status, unless you mean blackmail, gaslighting, etc. for the sake of becoming famous (though the question there is also - does the notion of fame too change over time? I'd argue that this is still within my framework of corruption since the component of power and fame that is a big aspect in it is material access - within a post-scarcicity system that might change, but we also don't know how such a society would look like in practice, we can merely speculate at this point in time).
A teacher that gave a student better marks in return for sexual favours is corruption. A politician suppressing an investigation of an ally's misconduct (or starting a bogus investigation to damage an enemy) is corruption. And so on.

I think if we're going to argue that the end result of any form of success is some degree of material benefit, well okay. On the other hand, I think that's quite reductionist and doesn't necessarily cater to real motivations. Lots of people cheat at online games, but they don't earn anything from it: they get a buzz from feeling superior, or admired (even if it's fake). Some people will take positions in society not because the positions pay that well, but because it allows them to exercise power over others, and so on.

The thing is though as well, is that ideologically, it is largely justifiable under capitalism that personal gain in the abstract is beneficial for society as a whole. A billionaire, regardless of their mode of income, will still spend money and stimulate the economy, consequently create a need for jobs and capital circulation that can result in growth and prosperity for all those involved in this chain of expenditure.
I am not sure that is true. Economists have suggested many forms of income generation that can be harmful. Rent, for instance, is often a way for the uncreative and unproductive to extract wealth from people who are creative and productive, and who could achieve much more if they didn't have the dead hand of rent sucking their resources away. If people are pouring their incomes into assets like housing, chances are it's less productive than pouring their assets into business investment.

Also, I think capitalism is often misrepresented. To read Adam Smith is to see the basic argument that self-interest drives attainment, but also to see a huge number of caveats and concerns. He notes, for instance, that people have a tendency to over-admire the wealthy and feel disgust for the poor in ways they don't deserve. There's discussion of the risks of wealth and power imbalance, and morality.

I think discussion of capitalism is twisted because the capitalists have the greatest power to expound a message and control society, and they tend to be amoral, self-interested and self-regarding. Of course they tell us that they're totally awesome because they are rich, and the richer we let them be the better it is for everyone. It's in their self-interest to do so. And of course they are less likely to admit all the downsides of letting them become stupendously rich. For instance, executive pay magnified hugely in the 1980s on the basis of academic research which suggested increased pay motivated better output. Obviously, the executive class decided this meant if they gave themselves huge sums of money, their companies would do better. Interestingly, however, academic research had also produced a load of research suggesting no link between increased pay and performance. But if you're a self-interested executive, it's terribly convenient to select the research that defends you handing yourself a massive bonus rather and ignore the research that doesn't. Similarly, why did this principle not filter down to the lower ranks? Why do the executives get motivated to better work with massive pay increases, but the grunts apparently aren't?

It's all power, really. Corruption is also enabled by power. Hence why societies need to empower systems to squash it.

But here's the thing - personal gain is also mediated heavily by social factors...
Impatience? It's more difficult than impatience. Let's imagine a country enacts a huge program to combat corruption, and refuses to develop in the interim because the investment may spur corruption. 20 years go by. But that's twenty years it's fallen behind in development. It's people are probably less educated, with worse public services, worse healthcare, poorer jobs, etc. This is a lot to ask of a population, to see themselves fall behind their neighbours. For its population that crave jobs, advancement, security and wealth to see it there ready to be used, but be denied because a paternalistic government decides it's bad for them until they're ready. I fear that government isn't going to last long.

There's also the idea of threat. When European nations colonised Africa, African tribes either fought each other to get slaves to sell to Europeans, or they didn't and fell behind the tribes that did: but faling behind endangered them - risked them being dominated, driven from their land. Nations today still have their insecurities and worries of being dominated by their neighbours. Wealth is power, power is wealth.
 

Sneed's SeednFeed

Elite Member
Apr 10, 2020
267
97
33
Country
Azerbaijan
Right, the post system keeps fucking up, so here goes, a quick summary:
- I agree with the Foucault style analysis of it being a question of power, however, I do think that the concentration of power is a big factor in determining activism and in determining the shape of the society we'd want to have. I largely agree with the later Marx assessment that revolutions should be decentralised and mass-movements in nature, since the French Revolution illustrated an instrumentalisation, not the will of, the masses. I think this has a fundamentally different expression of power, and something that ought to be pursued in politics overall, in place of a state-like structure where regrettably money can always buy influence, lest we are extremely lucky (and the current situation on hand- as the beneficiaries of colonialism by and large are the ones who get to have non-corrupt systems) or extremely patient (which is difficult to do as we all know, and see the point below). It's not simply about getting the right people in place, especially not when the attraction of wealth drives most people outside of poor countries.

- I see what you mean as corruption in that sense, however, exploitation and competition are ideological counterparts to a system that takes self-interest as a positive trait, not that self-interest is unnatural or should be quashed, just that it is especially privileged at the expense of cooperation. That doesn't mean competition can't be useful, or that cooperation is absent, it's just the way in which these factors are privileged. One could instantiate Max Weber and Herbert Marcuse in their disccusions of authority, the protestant ethic, the division of the private/public life, etc. and how they assist in the situation we have at hand, for better or for worse.

- Rent may be something Smith and quite a few Keynesian economists don't like, but it is an integral part of the global market by this point, and something that was directly inherited from feudalism. I disagree with the idea that capitalism hasn't reached its true manifestation in a broad sense the same way I would disagree with ancaps saying capitalism with a state isn't 'real' capitalism, trotskyists and their stage-ist analysis as well as the non-debate of what was 'a socialist state' (in my mind there's no such thing to begin with - they are capitalist entities with a highly centralised and totalitarian state that still revolves around the principles of capital circulation and wage-labour). There's also quite a lot to be said that sensible economic proposals along the lines of social democracy (which I'm sceptical of because of their being national-level proposals, when corruption and exploitation are international in their expressions and repercussions) get branded as loony communism at the behest of a media and sometimes even an academic body (Chicago School for example) who may be theoretically rigorous but ideologically determined at the foundation, or just instrumentalised in favour of the powerful (the same can be said of soviet and chinese policies - a command economy becomes the worst kind of bureaucratisation, despite the early Leninist and Maoist ideas revolving around the autonomy of workers councils external to the party).

- Consequently a drive for competition among material scarcity, artificial or otherwise means that the state is always at odds with those whose self-interest is at the center of capital circulation. It's a constant tension, or a contradiction if you will that alienates both the ambition of the capitalist and the regulatory functions of the state. The compromise we've been subject to in recent years has been the reification of banks and companies as essential and 'too big to fail'. Whilst Keynes suggested a break from this, it did little to circumvent international competition, which is also a huge factor in encouraging behaviours of corruption.

- For impatience I wanted to underline an individualistic example, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. The second issue with it is also that often anti-coruption parties or campaigns are right-wing in nature (Slovenia, The Phillippines, etc.) and led by a strongman logic of just getting the right people in place to fix everything, which makes the situation seem rather farcical (especially to my post-soviet eyes) and leads to an impatience both in pursuing competitive beharviours that can lead to corruption (and are weighed up so as to always be individually beneficial but collectively detrimental - but in a failing state who cares as you pointed out) but also leads to an impatience of activism, something that was the subject of Jerry Rawlings' and Thomas Sankara's discussions over pan-Africanism and development.
 

Sneed's SeednFeed

Elite Member
Apr 10, 2020
267
97
33
Country
Azerbaijan
When did I not do that? Keeping your leaders honest is the biggest step towards stamping out corruption and again, that goes into proper enforcement and oversight.
Culture isn't relevant, so I just excised that - the underlying structural elements are something me and Agema discussed and I don't want to repeat myself on that regard. A system is more than it's leaders, it's also those that participate in it outside of the state, their attitudes, their ideas in terms of seeking prosperity, the legal mechanisms in place, etc. etc.

As an example, Thomas Sankara was honest in battling colonial corruption, suspending corrupt trade unions (which, I implore you to watch documentaries on Nigerian unions to see their quasi-feudal natures) and in pushing forward public projects. His dismissal of teachers was a massive mistake, but the country's relative self-sufficiency, the limits imposed on the government (maximum wages, government vehicles, ban on purchasing foreign goods), the innoculation of millions of people and the eradication of polio across 4 years were all steps in the right direction, unparalleled by many in West Africa. And yet he was killed by his right-hand man at the behest of the Cote d'Ivoire government and the French, after which the state maintained an absolute monopoly and reconstituted the power of corrupt warlords and colonial relations. This is what I mean by a structural example - it wasn't enough for Sankara to be honest. The man was trusting and determined up to a fault, and other such African leaders, such as Patrice Lumumba, but the demands imposed on them as well as the structures they had to constantly fight against meant that it was not enough. The only exception I can think of is Paul Kagame, and he is a dictator who is not afraid of using the military and fostering ethno-nationalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neuromancer

Neuromancer

Endless Struggle
Legacy
Mar 16, 2012
5,035
530
118
a homeless squat
Country
None
Gender
Abolish
To give another example of structural and systematic malaise from the capitalist system, while also keeping the topic on Africa (and the French), Madagascar has been forced to give France debt payments since it became a free country, while due to interest the debt has not only not decreased, but will probably not be payed, ever.

What is the source of this debt? During decolonization, France demanded an exuberant amount of money from the newly formed Madagascar government in reparations for all the railroads, highways, bridges, plantations, and so forth that the French regime built while being Madagascar's colonial overlord.

The Madagascar governments since the island has been given sovereignty have had to tackle that debt every year. It has had to take new loans to pay the old debt payments, and newer loans to pay the new ones, and so on and so forth. to the point that debt has reached almost 50% of Madagascar's GDP. And the only thing the international community has to say about that is that Madagascar has to pay its debts.This is not a question of laws being broken or anything such. No laws were broken when the debt was decided. The US, the international loan enforcer of the last century, gave thumbs up and cheered France on. The system itself is made to fuck over entire countries, not just people.

(As an aside, an even grosser example of the capitalist system being used to punish uppity third worlders is Haiti. Haiti for those that don't know was a French colony that rose up against France, then led by Napoleon. They successfully freed themselves, declared sovereignty and universal rights and freedoms. France immediately insisted that the new republic owed it 150 million francs in damages for the expropriated plantations, as well as the expenses of outfitting the failed military expeditions, and all other nations, including the United States, agreed to impose an embargo on the country until it was paid. 150 million francs at the time, by the way, were roughly equivalent to 18 billion dollars nowadays.The sum was intentionally impossible and the resultant embargo ensured that the name "Haiti" has been a synonym for debt, poverty, and human misery ever since.)