[makeitdouble]

I think it's less black and white than that.

Politics exist in every organization with more than 3 people and a lot of people, and I am not sure to agree with your point on the lack of integrity.

To go to an extreme, our govs are severely lacking of integrity but aren't falling apart: there is some level of gross that will happen in any sufficiently large group, and properly navigating these situations is a valuable skill that is needed to get any decent progress inside these groups. You won't become a manager/high level clerk/elected official through sheer integrity, and these positions still need to be filled by competent people.

I'm not saying everyone needs to play weird games, just that's it a complex situation with no single guideline.

[bloqs]

This is in my opinion, doublespeak to some degree. I used to view it this way. Ultimately our governments reward lack of integrity - the evil king rises to power faster than a good king (perhaps term limits in western democracy play a role here) but ultimately honesty and integrity will, by the nature of their immutable consistency, always eventually triumph given sufficient effort. However - in an environment owned by the dishonest this often wont be realised, particularly if the risks are too high. What we are left with IS a lack of integrity being one key to one success in these scenarios. The question is... is that the life you want to lead? Stalin existed with total control, but ultimately everyone lied to him out of fear. He was successful from a human aquiring resources perspective, but. Is that a world someone wants to live in?

[philpem]

Most of Stalin's subjects didn't really get a choice in the matter...