[adventured]

You're setting up a fake strawman that the parent comment never suggested at all.

In no regard did the parent say that politicians in the West are not or are never corrupt, nor did they imply it. They said China's government is corrupt to the core.

[VeejayRampay]

The parent did mention that "in the West" individual liberty is more important than mass control without providing any evidence to back it up. Then proceeded to mention how corrupt the Chinese government is. It is true that they never say that the governments in the West are not corrupt, but by setting up the main point like that, it sure looks like trying to mirror the corruption and mass control in China with the individual liberty of the West, which seems a lot like whitewashing to me.

There is mass control and corruption in the West, it just takes a less obvious form.

[TeMPOraL]

And couldn't the same be said about US government? Or France government? Or any other Western government?

How is it that China is obviously "corrupt to the core", but our governments are not? Pretty much daily reports in the news about corruption in western democracies - they all don't count, I assume, because what we have here is not True Corruption?

[seanmcdirmid]

It’s not binary! China is more corrupt than western countries, even if the west stil has corruption. The west has frequent reports about corruption because the media is separate from the government as well as separation of power, nothing can be papered over even if Donald Trump wants to silence it. In china, only corruption is reported on from official direction, the press can’t act independently.

There are plenty of countries that are more corrupt than China (e.g. India and Russia, as well as most of Africa). Again, it’s not binary!

[TeMPOraL]

Of course it's not binary. What I'm suggesting is that differences in corruption may be small between all those countries (note that we can't just count everything that China does that's undemocratic as corruption, because China is not a democracy).

[seanmcdirmid]

China simply doesn’t have very strong rule of law, so the notion of illegal isn’t meaningful. What is deemed corruption is up to official discretion, and so you’ll be “made an example” if you step out of line; likewise, if you are too clean, you won’t get promoted because you can’t be controlled like this. There is no independent judicial system, no separation of power to carry out independent prosecutions, no independent media to do investigative reporting independently to cause public outrage (and when they do by accident, the punishments are severe). You are either safe or you aren’t as china has basically rejected rule of law (and constitutional law) as a western imperialistic concept.

This has nothing to do with democracy. Singapore is relatively undemocratic (opposition parties are slapped with libel suits on a regular basis) but lacks significant corruption as they have very strong rule of law (the Lees are benevolent tyrants).

Saying corruption in china is similar to corruption in the states is like saying their air pollution is similar.

[cycrutchfield]

So you're saying that because we do not hear about corruption in state-controlled media in countries like China and Russia, but we do hear about corruption in countries like the US or France, is evidence that Western corruption is more rampant than elsewhere?

[TeMPOraL]

I'm saying that nowhere in this thread there is proof suggesting that Western corruption is meaningfully smaller, and not just different in phenotype but functionally still in the same ballpark as Chinese corruption.

[cycrutchfield]

I appreciate the equivalency, but that is markedly untrue by any objective measure.