This is the part of the argument that baffles me. The argument goes: liberal democracies are partially captured by capitalism (corruption, actual, but frankly part of the argument is "corruption" in the sense of "we have the right to medicine, why don't doctors/nurses/... work for the government for free? No I won't feed them from my money. How dare you ask that!")
Fine. This is actually true. Money captures government. Of course, the fact that we discuss it so freely does mean something is done about it.
And yet, everyone I've ever spoken who came from an autocracy, from the USSR, from Palestine, from Saudi, from China, from DRC, from South Africa, from India (tbh India is worse than Europe, but far less bad than Russia was) ... They all confirm that every one of these non-liberal states are deeply, deeply corrupt and WILL prop up corrupt companies at the expense of everyone in the country, in some cases (or "if necessary") with violence. Some have islands of fair play (essentially a few sectors of the economy the rulers really don't care about but are still needed, and thus are an actual economic opportunity), but 95-100% of the economy is corrupt. And most of these people agree that this corruption in turn causes mass poverty, which in some cases is endemic.
One big theme is that all autocracies really have one purpose for all this corruption: to sabotage social mobility. Yes there is competition, usually between entire families, and one gains a bit one loses a bit, but NOBODY is allowed to switch places. That's what illiberal states are fundamentally about. Rulers remain rulers (especially in Saudi Arabia, that can go pretty damn FAR. Families whose children MUST take a job as a house servant for another family because their parents did that job. But also in China, it's about having the right families running the government. You can become the richest person among your cousins, with roughly the same amount of wealth as your richest uncle ... that's the limit. No going above it)
And yes, I obviously know of deeply unfair instances of corruption, in the US, and in Europe (oil companies are pretty much guaranteed to be corrupt, including in "the west", with telecom companies usually close behind). But it just doesn't compare to these illiberal states. And social mobility, definitely in the US, and even in Europe, is far higher.
So I'm baffled. Liberal capitalism is, as far as I can tell, by far the best solution to minimize corruption and maximize social mobility, both of which seem extremely desirable. It's also what these protests seem to be calling for. And yet ... every time there's demonstrations (which I understand, are part of liberal democracy and obviously part of the reason corruption remains under control) lots and lots of people call for entire countries to become illiberal. When asked they are under some sort of weird impression that socialism will make sure medicine is free, without training doctors. That housing for all will be the norm, while, of course, not building anything. That islam will mean wars end, without, of course, explaining why the conflict in, say, Sudan, isn't yet resolved.
> The argument goes: liberal democracies are partially captured by capitalism
My argument was that corruption can collapse any society, no matter the economic or political system.
In reply to your post:
In an autocracy, the corruption is obvious to everyone and concentrated in a branched tree starting at the top leader. It is (was * ) very easy to remove it all in a revolution (though, that doesn't usually lead to a corruption-free society after). In a democratic capitalistic system, corruption is hidden, dispersed, systemic, very difficult even to demonstrate it's existence, much less remove it.
So, in a democratic liberal society, protests against corruption can't target the corrupt structure of government, because it's mostly invisible. When times are hard people want an autocratic leader to solve their problem in an autocratic manner ("iron fist", Hitler was actually voted!). The protesters only demand the removal of current corruption, not it's replacement with a top-down autocratic corruption, which is inevitable in an autocratic system, but even so, when the new corruption gets bad enough, it will be removed in a revolution and the process starts over again in a democratic system.
* This cycle is probably not functional anymore. With surveillance tech, protesters can't organize to bring down an autocratic governemnt anymore. The same surveillance can transform a democratic government in a fascist corporate-led one (think society in Robocop movies). No real examples yet, but I'm sure we'll get there.
Fine. This is actually true. Money captures government. Of course, the fact that we discuss it so freely does mean something is done about it.
And yet, everyone I've ever spoken who came from an autocracy, from the USSR, from Palestine, from Saudi, from China, from DRC, from South Africa, from India (tbh India is worse than Europe, but far less bad than Russia was) ... They all confirm that every one of these non-liberal states are deeply, deeply corrupt and WILL prop up corrupt companies at the expense of everyone in the country, in some cases (or "if necessary") with violence. Some have islands of fair play (essentially a few sectors of the economy the rulers really don't care about but are still needed, and thus are an actual economic opportunity), but 95-100% of the economy is corrupt. And most of these people agree that this corruption in turn causes mass poverty, which in some cases is endemic.
One big theme is that all autocracies really have one purpose for all this corruption: to sabotage social mobility. Yes there is competition, usually between entire families, and one gains a bit one loses a bit, but NOBODY is allowed to switch places. That's what illiberal states are fundamentally about. Rulers remain rulers (especially in Saudi Arabia, that can go pretty damn FAR. Families whose children MUST take a job as a house servant for another family because their parents did that job. But also in China, it's about having the right families running the government. You can become the richest person among your cousins, with roughly the same amount of wealth as your richest uncle ... that's the limit. No going above it)
And yes, I obviously know of deeply unfair instances of corruption, in the US, and in Europe (oil companies are pretty much guaranteed to be corrupt, including in "the west", with telecom companies usually close behind). But it just doesn't compare to these illiberal states. And social mobility, definitely in the US, and even in Europe, is far higher.
So I'm baffled. Liberal capitalism is, as far as I can tell, by far the best solution to minimize corruption and maximize social mobility, both of which seem extremely desirable. It's also what these protests seem to be calling for. And yet ... every time there's demonstrations (which I understand, are part of liberal democracy and obviously part of the reason corruption remains under control) lots and lots of people call for entire countries to become illiberal. When asked they are under some sort of weird impression that socialism will make sure medicine is free, without training doctors. That housing for all will be the norm, while, of course, not building anything. That islam will mean wars end, without, of course, explaining why the conflict in, say, Sudan, isn't yet resolved.