Right: definitions -- such as that of corruption -- are historically relative. "Corruption" is defined _relative to_ "bourgeois right," which is something that changes over time. It involves breaking the rules of the capitalist game. Though the main rules are pretty much the same, the details differ between places and times.
------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Jurriaan Bendien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The concept of corruption > > > > In short, a concept like this defies definition. > > I don't think that's true, Marx would say, definitions of > corruption are > historically relative. But in the foundations of bourgeois > society and moral > thinking, corruption just means unfair competition, and this > is normally > legally defined. But since it is impossible to provide a > complete legal > definition, since the dimensions of competition are always > changing, the > concept always remains a little vague, there is a grey area. > And so for > example we could dispute about the legality and morality of > the business > annexation of Iraq - when is expropriation justified, or not > ? How does this > fit into moral rationality ? The real point is that the > market provides no > morality of its own, except what is technically necessary to > conclude a > market transaction, and that competition, rooted in conflicts > over private > property, itself gives rise to vagueness. > > J. >
