

How China's Public Officials Stole $120 Billion and Fled - bchjam
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2079756,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

======
vrikhter
I was born in the former Soviet Union and grew up listening to my parents and
their friends discussing how corrupt communism was. This article doesn't bear
any real surprise to me and let me explain why.

Any individuals first and only desire is to take care of himself and his
family. Just about anyone will go to any means necessary, illegal means
included. In the former USSR and even today a lot of people involved in
government were using the government as a means to take care of them and their
families. This is because prior to the 90's, there was no other way to achieve
wealth. Secondly, once a system takes on characters that are willing to bend
rules, everyone is involved. Those who are not willing to participate are
thrown out, ignored or placed in positions that will make them re-think their
approach to their career and their methods to take care of their family. Sure,
there are ethical considerations here, but realistically, if everyone around
you is making millions and living a great life, you will inevitably follow
their path as well. 18,000!! 18,000 people participated here! I'm sure there
are scores of others that have taken a little bit here and there as well.
Maybe got by with only a few thousand vs. millions.

Communism is a horribly corrupt government form. It forces too much activity
to flow through too few people. I would hope that China takes a stand against
this, but my skepticism doesn't allow me to believe that the ones pursuing
this investigation are any different than the culprits.

~~~
Shenglong
I'd like to point out, that while China has a _communist party_ , it is no
longer a communist country.

~~~
anamax
> I'd like to point out, that while China has a communist party, it is no
> longer a communist country.

What makes China "no longer a communist country"?

Can anyone run for office? Are there significant legal and extra-legal
controls on "private" property?

Every communist country has allowed some private property, so if your answer
is "Chinese can now own land/cars", please tell us where the line is on that
slippery slope.

~~~
Shenglong
_A political theory ... advocating class war and leading to a society in which
all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to
their abilities and needs._

1\. No more class war 2\. Property might be "publicly owned", but it's as good
as private. 3\. There is an absolutely huge disparity in income. My elevator
operator got paid 500 RMB/mo, while each one of the random gifts I got for
just happening to be close to someone important, was over 2000 RMB.

A relative of mine recently bought a large plot of farm land from a bunch of
farmers, for a substantial sum of money - much more than its value. He spent a
load of money and bought high-end equipment and machines, and hired
agricultural specialists to consult on best practices. He started growing
high-quality fruits/vegetables purely for family consumption, and as a pass-
time. In fact, when he's bored, he just goes to the farm and starts farming.

After a while, the farmers realized how much value their land had gained (not
due to economic reasons, but because he had invested so heavily in it) and
started to complain. The government did absolutely nothing. What I'm trying to
emphasize is that class wars are no longer in place, and recognition of
private rights are soaring. China, really, is a capitalist state... a
capitalism without democracy.

Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism. Do
you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office? Take
Quebec for example. In the most recent Canadian elections, a girl ran for MP
(Canadian congress) for lulz, and went to vegas during the election. She did
absolutely no campaigning, and came back to find that she had won the seat.

~~~
anamax
> 3\. There is an absolutely huge disparity in income.

There was under communism as well - do you really think that the leaders were
poor? (You could have argued that only those in govt were rich before. Then
I'd have asked how many of the current rich are not "connected".)

> their land had gained (not due to economic reasons, but because he had
> invested so heavily in it) and started to complain.

(1) "their land" hadn't gained any value - it wasn't their land after they
sold it. (2) investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value.

> The government did absolutely nothing.

That happened under communism as well.

Is he connected? Are they politically disfavored?

> Just because not everyone can be a leader, doesn't mean it's a communism.

One of the essential properties of communism is that only the politically
reliable are eligible for public office.

It's not the only essential property, but it is one of them.

> Do you know what happens when anyone can be a leader and run for office?

Yes, I do - random people run for office. Sometimes they win. That can't
happen in a communist society.

~~~
Shenglong
I can't debate this with you if the semantics keep changing. The definition of
"communism" is defined as "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims
for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the
means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of
wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate"

If you define communism to be like capitalism, then the argument is semantics;
if that's the case, I'll concede.

 _investing IS an economic reason for something to go up in value._ \- I'm
aware... I suppose what I implied 'external'... such as land increasing in
value several times without action on his part.

~~~
anamax
> The definition of "communism" is defined as "Communism is a sociopolitical
> movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon
> common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of
> consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of
> production and real estate"

You're confusing theory with reality.

Since we're starting with the assumption that China was communist in the past,
that definition is problematic because it tells us that China was never
communist.

I assumed that you wanted to use a definition of communism that both Mao-era
China and the USSR satisfied at some time. Was I wrong?

------
bilbo0s
I have to say that if you have ever lived in China, you are not surprised that
so many corrupt officials run. China is not like the US where you can engage
in corruption and get a slap on the wrist.

In China, they _will_ execute you, your wife, AND your mistress. And they will
keep arresting or executing your acquaintances until someone comes up with the
missing money.

Then they will execute that person as well!

That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much.

What is sad is that some of these guys _might_ have been willing to cooperate
in returning the stolen funds were it not for the aggressive nature of anti-
corruption prosecutions over there. Now, however, the whole thing has spiraled
out of hand. The Chinese are swimming in money. They don't even _want_ the
money back...they just want the corrupt guy or gal dead. So there is very
little incentive for witnesses or corrupt officials or whatever to cooperate
if they can manage to flee. And they all go to the US or Canada, where they
are protected. So the whole thing has deteriorated into a grudge match.

~~~
anamax
> China is not like the US where you can engage in corruption and get a slap
> on the wrist.

Slap on the wrist? US public officials who engage in corruption are often
rewarded. (Rod Blagojevich, the former Ill governor is going to jail because
he pissed off the wrong people, not because he was corrupt.)

