Keith Hudson wrote: > However, the unfortunate fact is that because > the modern nation-state has so much power in almost every department of the > country's activities, politicians at the top have almost unlimited > opportunities to line their pockets. For example, out of the 15 members of > the European Union at least nine or ten of their most senior politicians > (sometimes called "statesmen") have faced court proceedings for corruption > in the last few years. The last Tory government in England lost power > mainly due to sleaze, and we have had more than a few instances of alleged > financial corruption already in the Labour administration. I'll grant that > most ordinary Members of Parliament are conscientious people who mostly do > their best for their constituents -- but the House of Commons is not where > the power is these days. It's in the Cabinet (and, today, within an even > smaller clique). When you have that sort of structure -- and this > Presidential system seems to be so in all developed countries -- then I > cannot see how corruption can be avoided. Do you think such politicians > really have the "promotion of a civil society" as their main objective? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The lesson of this is: Small is beautiful, and democratic control and transparency is important. However, what you seem to suggest is putting out fire with gasoline. Corruption and egoism is much worse in the corporate world than in (direct-)democratically controlled small nation-states. (Btw, the EU is ruled by corporations, not the people...) > The "sociopathic right wing idealogue" examples of, say, ex-President > Marcos in the Philippines, or the present General So-and-so in Burma > produce corruption and suffering on a massive scale. But even they don't > compare with the "sociopathic left wing idealogue" examples of Stalin, > Mao-Tse and the present President Kim of North Korea who have produced, and > are still producing, death through starvation of scores of millions of people. Your examples are selective in a biased way. Why didn't you compare e.g. Castro's Cuba with Battista's Cuba, or Allende's Chile with Pinochet's Chile? (and note these are examples from the U$'s backyard, where leftists are inherently worse off due to U$ sanctions etc.) On a historical scale, what has cost by far the most victims, is imperialism by kingdoms and religions -- both is *right-wing*, not left-wing. Chris
