Corruption and Capitalism

Jul 03, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

Of recent, I have been exhorted by some to speak out against corruption in our society. This is in the face of several pieces in which I attempted to deal with the wellsprings of corruption, with the explicit caution that unless we address the phenomenon at this level, we would just be spinning our wheels. And ensuring that whichever party assumes control of the government, the status quo will remain. But of course, there are those that would prefer to just cuss out the “thieving scoundrels” for the “low life” they are.
I return once more to the theme of corruption being linked to the political/economic system – and note that not so long ago the latter was studied as one (political economy) and was part of ethics and not “science”. In pursuit of purported scientific objectivity, we lost the mooring of ethics for all social pursuits. It is ironic that the man thought to have done more than most to push the field in a “scientific” direction – Karl Marx – was almost an Old Testament prophet with his ethical jeremiads.
Now this is not to let anyone off the hook for corruption in their personal capacity – and the possible need to cuss them out and more to the point, to deal with them condignly. But by now it is almost trite to point out that all individuals are embedded and imbricated in a complex of social relations and institutions. We simultaneously constitute and are constituted by these. It was old Marx himself who proposed, after all, that indeed, “men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing.” I want to look at the phenomenon of corruption that men engage in along with the conjunctural circumstances of the present.
It is accepted nowadays that there are two kinds of goods and services for which payments are made. For the first type, the goods and services are considered as commodities that can be legally sold for whatever the market will bear. I plant my rice, sell it for whatever price I choose and the profits are mine to have and hold – even though some who cannot afford them may be upset. In this schema up to now there is no “corruption”.
In the other type, the production or allocation of goods or services is controlled by the state through some understanding that this process serves the public good. The items are not considered as commodities or not completely so. Charging a price or beyond the set price is considered as “corruption”. In this instance, the ones who are corrupt are those that have the authority of the state to conduct the transactions. In Guyana, this is the type of corruption that we are concerned about.
This is because the good – let’s say a job in a Ministry – was not meant to be a commodity and command a price, but becomes one when the official demands a price, which we call a bribe. This is corruption and the culprit is the official we have placed in charge. When the practice becomes widespread, persons that want the good will offer the price without even being asked. A market has been created. At one time, for instance, there was a market for US visas from the US Embassy at over US$15,000 per head, when they were supposed to be free.
Now, one point to note is no matter what political/economic system we institute, there will always be this distinction between these two types of goods and services – and the potential for corruption. There are two consequences that must be confronted. The first has to do with where we draw the line between them – which has to do with one’s ideology with its ethical premises.
Marxists, as for instance in the old USSR, extend state control over the price of almost the complete range of goods and services their society needs. The Burnhamite cooperative republic also extended the line in this direction. The theory is that the goods will be allocated in accordance to the ethical imperatives of their distributive justice.
In practice, among other contradictions, while the intent may be laudable, the scope for corruption by state officials is increased – as we know to our cost during the Burnham years. It was the reaction to corruption and other bottlenecks produced by the expansion of governmental control over the production of goods and services that led to the neo-liberal regime that swept the world from the 1980s.
With the victory of the neo-liberal forces in the eighties, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction: practically everything was commoditized and given a price. The market was supposed to take care of allocation and, in theory at least, there would be less scope for corruption. But this has its own set of consequences and corruption that are perhaps even more insidious. (To be continued)

---

---