Why Do You Guys Hate Communism So Much?

[GoranZ]

Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people. On the other hand Capitalism creates and endorses differences.
I think that Western Media and Hollywood are generally responsible for distorted picture about what communism is and is not... Thats the only way powerlords to stay in power in flawfull system like capitalism.

Define:

efficiency
Communism
Capitalism


After that, then we can reasonably criticize your beliefs/objective facts.

Capitalism - economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.
Communism - economic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money and the state.
Efficiency - capability to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

[mrswdk]

It would be much more difficult for the manipulators to propagandize and sow the seeds of division if people didn't buy into those sorts of stupid over-simplifications.

True, but is it correct to expect people to drop resources into learning about political philosophy, economics, and so on?

No, but I can at least try to prevent a small-scale debate that I am part of being dragged into stupidity.

[Metsfanmax]

It would be much more difficult for the manipulators to propagandize and sow the seeds of division if people didn't buy into those sorts of stupid over-simplifications.

True, but is it correct to expect people to drop resources into learning about political philosophy, economics, and so on?

No, but I can at least try to prevent a small-scale debate that I am part of being dragged into stupidity.

You entered this topic specifically to make this terminological distinction. That is, you started the small-scale debate. So, this is rather disingenuous.

[mrswdk]

Did I create this thread? DaGip started the debate. I am just trying to help people use this debate's terminology in a way that will stop them from sounding like this guy:



(taken at a protest currently taking place about some police shooting in LA)

[BigBallinStalin]

Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people. On the other hand Capitalism creates and endorses differences.
I think that Western Media and Hollywood are generally responsible for distorted picture about what communism is and is not... Thats the only way powerlords to stay in power in flawfull system like capitalism.

Define:

efficiency
Communism
Capitalism


After that, then we can reasonably criticize your beliefs/objective facts.

Capitalism - economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.
Communism - economic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money and the state.
Efficiency - capability to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

Okay.

"Capitalism" is a crap term. Ownership can vary from "in name" and "in fact"--e.g. government regulation redistributes the bundle of property rights from private owners to bureaucrats, politicians, etc. You can own something, but still be restricted in its use. Political economies lie on a spectrum. At the far left is the Soviet Union circa 1920s. Trailing behind is Nazi Germany. Trailing somewhat close behind is the US and pretty much all Western countries during the 1930s and 1940s (yeah, quasi national socialist).

As we move from left to right, the bundle of property rights becomes more allocated toward economic entities and away from government entities. So, with that, we drop the "Capitalism" category because it makes no sense. (Marx invented it, and people frequently use it as a boogie man).


Next up: communism.

(a) what exactly does "common ownership" mean?
(b) define "social classes, money, and the state" (cuz so far communism doesn't exist, from my definitions).

[GoranZ]

Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people. On the other hand Capitalism creates and endorses differences.
I think that Western Media and Hollywood are generally responsible for distorted picture about what communism is and is not... Thats the only way powerlords to stay in power in flawfull system like capitalism.

Define:

efficiency
Communism
Capitalism


After that, then we can reasonably criticize your beliefs/objective facts.

Capitalism - economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.
Communism - economic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money and the state.
Efficiency - capability to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

Okay.

"Capitalism" is a crap term. Ownership can vary from "in name" and "in fact"--e.g. government regulation redistributes the bundle of property rights from private owners to bureaucrats, politicians, etc. You can own something, but still be restricted in its use. Political economies lie on a spectrum. At the far left is the Soviet Union circa 1920s. Trailing behind is Nazi Germany. Trailing somewhat close behind is the US and pretty much all Western countries during the 1930s and 1940s (yeah, quasi national socialist).

As we move from left to right, the bundle of property rights becomes more allocated toward economic entities and away from government entities. So, with that, we drop the "Capitalism" category because it makes no sense. (Marx invented it, and people frequently use it as a boogie man).


Next up: communism.

(a) what exactly does "common ownership" mean?
(b) define "social classes, money, and the state" (cuz so far communism doesn't exist, from my definitions).

(a) common ownership is joint ownership by all individuals in a society.
(b) is well explained in the Wikipedia article I posted about Communism. Generally Communism doesn't have social classes, money or states, they are not needed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people. On the other hand Capitalism creates and endorses differences.
I think that Western Media and Hollywood are generally responsible for distorted picture about what communism is and is not... Thats the only way powerlords to stay in power in flawfull system like capitalism.

Define:

efficiency
Communism
Capitalism


After that, then we can reasonably criticize your beliefs/objective facts.

Capitalism - economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.
Communism - economic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money and the state.
Efficiency - capability to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

Okay.

"Capitalism" is a crap term. Ownership can vary from "in name" and "in fact"--e.g. government regulation redistributes the bundle of property rights from private owners to bureaucrats, politicians, etc. You can own something, but still be restricted in its use. Political economies lie on a spectrum. At the far left is the Soviet Union circa 1920s. Trailing behind is Nazi Germany. Trailing somewhat close behind is the US and pretty much all Western countries during the 1930s and 1940s (yeah, quasi national socialist).

As we move from left to right, the bundle of property rights becomes more allocated toward economic entities and away from government entities. So, with that, we drop the "Capitalism" category because it makes no sense. (Marx invented it, and people frequently use it as a boogie man).


Next up: communism.

(a) what exactly does "common ownership" mean?
(b) define "social classes, money, and the state" (cuz so far communism doesn't exist, from my definitions).

(a) common ownership is joint ownership by all individuals in a society.
(b) is well explained in the Wikipedia article I posted about Communism. Generally Communism doesn't have social classes, money or states, they are not needed.

(b) so, you know what happened to Russia in its attempts to implement a moneyless economy, right? Money, i.e. a medium of exchange, is necessary for greater prosperity.

Communism has social classes. The "ideal communism," which never existed and which cannot be attained--except at low levels (e.g. a commune within a prosperous society like the US), does not have social classes. Communism, in practice, needs social classes. It needs to pit the "good guys" (proletarians and the authorities) versus the "bad guys" (bourgeoisie, counter-revolutionaries, who can be communist or liberal, small land owners--unless they get the 'okay' from the political agents). Social classes are exacerbated in order to create the tension on which communism, in practice, thrives. Meanwhile, not much in the way of wealth is being created (killing and imprisoning a bunch of the country's citizens has that effect. Abolishing money doesn't help either. There's been much waste/inefficiency here--unless the desired outcome is to kill and control people in a brutal fashion).

(a) works in particular small communes for a short period of time within wealthy enough market economies. There's plenty of problems with that, but let's focus on something more important.

You admit that Goranzian Communism never existed but somehow you conclude that "Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people." In order to get to your Communism, Communists tend to implement imperfect communism/socialism in order to obtain that goal. Since that worked out rather crappily, I'm not sure why you'd still stick to your conclusion.

[thegreekdog]

Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people. On the other hand Capitalism creates and endorses differences.
I think that Western Media and Hollywood are generally responsible for distorted picture about what communism is and is not... Thats the only way powerlords to stay in power in flawfull system like capitalism.

Define:

efficiency
Communism
Capitalism


After that, then we can reasonably criticize your beliefs/objective facts.

To be fair, there have been a lot more western media/Hollywood characterizations of communist states than there have been communist states. You may also want to ask Goranz his/her definition of "powerlords." I suspect that the elite members of the communist parties in the late Soviet Union, Cuba, and China could be considered "powerlords" but I want to make sure I get the definition right.

By the way Goranz - I get my communism information from the western television show "The Americans."

[patches70]

By the way Goranz - I get my communism information from the western television show "The Americans."

That's a good show!

[tzor]

It's only a matter of time before TRUE communism takes over the world.

True communism has never existed on this world.
And it will never exist on this world.

[Metsfanmax]

You admit that Goranzian Communism never existed but somehow you conclude that "Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people." In order to get to your Communism, Communists tend to implement imperfect communism/socialism in order to obtain that goal. Since that worked out rather crappily, I'm not sure why you'd still stick to your conclusion.

One could apply the same analysis to capitalism -- we've never had a significant capitalist system that wasn't imperfect, due to the tendency of businesses to influence politicians. As a result, anyone who says things like "crony capitalism" and laments about how much better things would be if we would just stop doing that, is talking about a system that could probably never exist.

How do we know true communism cannot work? Because politicians are corrupt. How do we know true capitalism cannot work? Same reasoning.

[DaGip]

It's only a matter of time before TRUE communism takes over the world.

True communism has never existed on this world.
And it will never exist on this world.

Your pea-brain cannot comprehend.

Lo, they have ears!

[BigBallinStalin]

You admit that Goranzian Communism never existed but somehow you conclude that "Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people." In order to get to your Communism, Communists tend to implement imperfect communism/socialism in order to obtain that goal. Since that worked out rather crappily, I'm not sure why you'd still stick to your conclusion.

One could apply the same analysis to capitalism -- we've never had a significant capitalist system that wasn't imperfect, due to the tendency of businesses to influence politicians. As a result, anyone who says things like "crony capitalism" and laments about how much better things would be if we would just stop doing that, is talking about a system that could probably never exist.

How do we know true communism cannot work? Because politicians are corrupt. How do we know true capitalism cannot work? Same reasoning.

That's why I dropped the term, "capitalism," for reasons already mentioned.

"True communism" doesn't work--in that it can't obtain greater prosperity than the mixed political economies of today because it's not just a matter of having well-intended political agents. There's the economic calculation problem (removing markets, removes market prices, which prevents rational allocation of resources to their most highly valued uses; inefficiencies follow). Banning money and somehow trying to remove "social classes" doesn't help. So, it's not just "politicians are corrupt."

For mixed political economies, they vary in their degree of surmounting the economic calculation problem, but they tend to perform better than "true communism" or full-blown socialism.

Sure, with "true capitalism" or the libertarian utopian vision, there's similar problems about market entities coordinating with political entities. There's also a bigger problem: voters. If voters generally demand a 'moderate national socialist' society, then they'll tend to get one.

[Dukasaur]

You admit that Goranzian Communism never existed but somehow you conclude that "Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people." In order to get to your Communism, Communists tend to implement imperfect communism/socialism in order to obtain that goal. Since that worked out rather crappily, I'm not sure why you'd still stick to your conclusion.

One could apply the same analysis to capitalism -- we've never had a significant capitalist system that wasn't imperfect, due to the tendency of businesses to influence politicians. As a result, anyone who says things like "crony capitalism" and laments about how much better things would be if we would just stop doing that, is talking about a system that could probably never exist.

How do we know true communism cannot work? Because politicians are corrupt. How do we know true capitalism cannot work? Same reasoning.

Quite true.

And yet capitalism, even in the corrupt and degenerate condition that it is usually practised, has still managed, in most times and in most places, to produce a steadily increasing standard of living. Communism, in most times and in most places, produced either a decreasing or a stable-but-low standard of living.

A perfectly free market, like a perfect vacuum or a perfectly pure element, is almost certainly unattainable. Nonetheless, just as we can ascribe certain attributes to an element from the impure samples we have available, we can ascribe certain attributes to a free market society even from the poor examples we have available.

[AndyDufresne]

FYI: I'm willing to sell my communism to the highest bidder.


--Andy

[oVo]

It's only a matter of time before TRUE communism takes over the world. There is nothing you can do about it , unless you oppose and fight against the technological revolution that is going on right now.

Computers are NOT capitalists! You have lost the war! Communism has won!

Nothing wrong with communism, just the corrupt fuckers who run it.
Which is the same problem with all governments. The human factor.

[GoranZ]

...
(a) what exactly does "common ownership" mean?
(b) define "social classes, money, and the state" (cuz so far communism doesn't exist, from my definitions).

(a) common ownership is joint ownership by all individuals in a society.
(b) is well explained in the Wikipedia article I posted about Communism. Generally Communism doesn't have social classes, money or states, they are not needed.

(b) so, you know what happened to Russia in its attempts to implement a moneyless economy, right? Money, i.e. a medium of exchange, is necessary for greater prosperity.

Communism has social classes. The "ideal communism," which never existed and which cannot be attained--except at low levels (e.g. a commune within a prosperous society like the US), does not have social classes. Communism, in practice, needs social classes. It needs to pit the "good guys" (proletarians and the authorities) versus the "bad guys" (bourgeoisie, counter-revolutionaries, who can be communist or liberal, small land owners--unless they get the 'okay' from the political agents). Social classes are exacerbated in order to create the tension on which communism, in practice, thrives. Meanwhile, not much in the way of wealth is being created (killing and imprisoning a bunch of the country's citizens has that effect. Abolishing money doesn't help either. There's been much waste/inefficiency here--unless the desired outcome is to kill and control people in a brutal fashion).

(a) works in particular small communes for a short period of time within wealthy enough market economies. There's plenty of problems with that, but let's focus on something more important.

You admit that Goranzian Communism never existed but somehow you conclude that "Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people." In order to get to your Communism, Communists tend to implement imperfect communism/socialism in order to obtain that goal. Since that worked out rather crappily, I'm not sure why you'd still stick to your conclusion.

(a) Communism works perfectly for achieving common goals, for example during Yugoslavia's times(socialist country) forest-less mountain near my town was forested. The state then only payed for the trees, and everyone participated in the actions for foresting the mountain, actually there was no option to decline the call for foresting.
Few years ago part of the mountain got forest fire(most likely deliberately for cheep wood) but now no one from the government(Now we have capitalism) is even considering to reforest the part of the mountain that got the forest fire although that is common good. Now under capitalism everyone wants and expects to be payed for participating in such events. I presume it is similar everywhere else, nothing is done for common good but for profit, despite the fact that the things done for common good are one of the most beneficial ones.

(b) Without money there is no bribery, less corruption... so true communism can not survive with existence of money. Money weren't and never will be a sign of prosperity, they are a sign of corruption tho.

It's only a matter of time before TRUE communism takes over the world. There is nothing you can do about it , unless you oppose and fight against the technological revolution that is going on right now.

Computers are NOT capitalists! You have lost the war! Communism has won!

Nothing wrong with communism, just the corrupt fuckers who run it.
Which is the same problem with all governments. The human factor.

All depend how government representatives are elected, if there is no way for the common people to punish the government if they are not doing their job properly then any government type will fail.

[thegreekdog]

(a) Communism works perfectly for achieving common goals, for example during Yugoslavia's times(socialist country) forest-less mountain near my town was forested. The state then only payed for the trees, and everyone participated in the actions for foresting the mountain, actually there was no option to decline the call for foresting.
Few years ago part of the mountain got forest fire(most likely deliberately for cheep wood) but now no one from the government(Now we have capitalism) is even considering to reforest the part of the mountain that got the forest fire although that is common good. Now under capitalism everyone wants and expects to be payed for participating in such events. I presume it is similar everywhere else, nothing is done for common good but for profit, despite the fact that the things done for common good are one of the most beneficial ones.

A few questions:

(1) How did the state pay for the trees under socialism?
(2) How would the state pay for the trees under capitalism?
(3) What would have happened had someone declined the call for foresting under socialism?
(4) What would happen if the government under capitalism called for foresting?

I don't get how the result under socialism would be any different than the result under capitalism. It sounds like the state used common funds (I would call them taxes) to purchase trees and then required people, under pain of imprisonment, to plant the trees. It sounds like people don't want to plant trees now (including the people in government) and therefore they aren't being planted. Even under the "capitalist" system, the government could still buy trees (through taxes) and force people to plant them (under pain of imprisonment). Even under the "socialist" system, the government could decide not to forest the mountain. And even if we disregard the government, people could still decide to forest the mountain using their own funds and with their own labor (either paid or unpaid) under a "capitalist" system.

That's a long-winded way of saying I don't get the difference.

[BigBallinStalin]

(a) Communism works perfectly for achieving common goals, for example during Yugoslavia's times(socialist country) forest-less mountain near my town was forested. The state then only payed for the trees, and everyone participated in the actions for foresting the mountain, actually there was no option to decline the call for foresting.
Few years ago part of the mountain got forest fire(most likely deliberately for cheep wood) but now no one from the government(Now we have capitalism) is even considering to reforest the part of the mountain that got the forest fire although that is common good. Now under capitalism everyone wants and expects to be payed for participating in such events. I presume it is similar everywhere else, nothing is done for common good but for profit, despite the fact that the things done for common good are one of the most beneficial ones.

A few questions:

(1) How did the state pay for the trees under socialism?
(2) How would the state pay for the trees under capitalism?
(3) What would have happened had someone declined the call for foresting under socialism?
(4) What would happen if the government under capitalism called for foresting?

I don't get how the result under socialism would be any different than the result under capitalism. It sounds like the state used common funds (I would call them taxes) to purchase trees and then required people, under pain of imprisonment, to plant the trees. It sounds like people don't want to plant trees now (including the people in government) and therefore they aren't being planted. Even under the "capitalist" system, the government could still buy trees (through taxes) and force people to plant them (under pain of imprisonment). Even under the "socialist" system, the government could decide not to forest the mountain. And even if we disregard the government, people could still decide to forest the mountain using their own funds and with their own labor (either paid or unpaid) under a "capitalist" system.

That's a long-winded way of saying I don't get the difference.

Because you're essentially describing a mixed political economy. You're using two different terms to describe something entirely different (what we have today).

Under socialism, the government calls the shots on what to do with the forest and what people will do to it. The "central authorities" (those with political power) own 100% of the bundle of property rights on everything. Under a pure market system, some firm owns the forest and has to entice people to do whatever to the forest. No central body owns 100% of the bundle of property rights on everything. In between these two extremes is the mixed political economy--the US, France, Germany.

The distribution of property rights differs. The use of force also differs. The means of exchange differ.

(Of course, I'm ignoring the enforcement mechanism of rules and the law-governing organizations over various sectors with a pure market economy. This helps keep my post short).

[BigBallinStalin]

...
(a) what exactly does "common ownership" mean?
(b) define "social classes, money, and the state" (cuz so far communism doesn't exist, from my definitions).

(a) common ownership is joint ownership by all individuals in a society.
(b) is well explained in the Wikipedia article I posted about Communism. Generally Communism doesn't have social classes, money or states, they are not needed.

(b) so, you know what happened to Russia in its attempts to implement a moneyless economy, right? Money, i.e. a medium of exchange, is necessary for greater prosperity.

Communism has social classes. The "ideal communism," which never existed and which cannot be attained--except at low levels (e.g. a commune within a prosperous society like the US), does not have social classes. Communism, in practice, needs social classes. It needs to pit the "good guys" (proletarians and the authorities) versus the "bad guys" (bourgeoisie, counter-revolutionaries, who can be communist or liberal, small land owners--unless they get the 'okay' from the political agents). Social classes are exacerbated in order to create the tension on which communism, in practice, thrives. Meanwhile, not much in the way of wealth is being created (killing and imprisoning a bunch of the country's citizens has that effect. Abolishing money doesn't help either. There's been much waste/inefficiency here--unless the desired outcome is to kill and control people in a brutal fashion).

(a) works in particular small communes for a short period of time within wealthy enough market economies. There's plenty of problems with that, but let's focus on something more important.

You admit that Goranzian Communism never existed but somehow you conclude that "Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people." In order to get to your Communism, Communists tend to implement imperfect communism/socialism in order to obtain that goal. Since that worked out rather crappily, I'm not sure why you'd still stick to your conclusion.

(a) Communism works perfectly for achieving common goals, for example during Yugoslavia's times(socialist country) forest-less mountain near my town was forested. The state then only payed for the trees, and everyone participated in the actions for foresting the mountain, actually there was no option to decline the call for foresting.
Few years ago part of the mountain got forest fire(most likely deliberately for cheep wood) but now no one from the government(Now we have capitalism) is even considering to reforest the part of the mountain that got the forest fire although that is common good. Now under capitalism everyone wants and expects to be payed for participating in such events. I presume it is similar everywhere else, nothing is done for common good but for profit, despite the fact that the things done for common good are one of the most beneficial ones.

So, communism is the best because of a problem with a forest in Yugoslavia?

(b) Without money there is no bribery, less corruption... so true communism can not survive with existence of money. Money weren't and never will be a sign of prosperity, they are a sign of corruption tho.

Well, the use of money reduces inefficiencies, thereby increasing prosperity. It's depends on how that money is handled--e.g. if it's monopolized by a government agency (central bank).

Without "money," you can bribe people with cattle or privileges granted only by government. You can't make corruption go away by assuming away money. Besides, even with well-intended communists, the system is at best less efficient, and at worst, irrational, destructive, and unstable.


Google "War Communism" for a wonderful experiment in your beloved communism. There's no prosperity there. Sorry.

[thegreekdog]

(a) Communism works perfectly for achieving common goals, for example during Yugoslavia's times(socialist country) forest-less mountain near my town was forested. The state then only payed for the trees, and everyone participated in the actions for foresting the mountain, actually there was no option to decline the call for foresting.
Few years ago part of the mountain got forest fire(most likely deliberately for cheep wood) but now no one from the government(Now we have capitalism) is even considering to reforest the part of the mountain that got the forest fire although that is common good. Now under capitalism everyone wants and expects to be payed for participating in such events. I presume it is similar everywhere else, nothing is done for common good but for profit, despite the fact that the things done for common good are one of the most beneficial ones.

A few questions:

(1) How did the state pay for the trees under socialism?
(2) How would the state pay for the trees under capitalism?
(3) What would have happened had someone declined the call for foresting under socialism?
(4) What would happen if the government under capitalism called for foresting?

I don't get how the result under socialism would be any different than the result under capitalism. It sounds like the state used common funds (I would call them taxes) to purchase trees and then required people, under pain of imprisonment, to plant the trees. It sounds like people don't want to plant trees now (including the people in government) and therefore they aren't being planted. Even under the "capitalist" system, the government could still buy trees (through taxes) and force people to plant them (under pain of imprisonment). Even under the "socialist" system, the government could decide not to forest the mountain. And even if we disregard the government, people could still decide to forest the mountain using their own funds and with their own labor (either paid or unpaid) under a "capitalist" system.

That's a long-winded way of saying I don't get the difference.

Because you're essentially describing a mixed political economy. You're using two different terms to describe something entirely different (what we have today).

Under socialism, the government calls the shots on what to do with the forest and what people will do to it. The "central authorities" (those with political power) own 100% of the bundle of property rights on everything. Under a pure market system, some firm owns the forest and has to entice people to do whatever to the forest. No central body owns 100% of the bundle of property rights on everything. In between these two extremes is the mixed political economy--the US, France, Germany.

The distribution of property rights differs. The use of force also differs. The means of exchange differ.

(Of course, I'm ignoring the enforcement mechanism of rules and the law-governing organizations over various sectors with a pure market economy. This helps keep my post short).

Actually, I think Goranz is using different terms (incorrectly by the way) for what is essentially the same thing.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, he is when he mentioned Yugoslavia and the forest in his backyard.

[DoomYoshi]

Corruption isn't one to look at. Corruption is a societal force, not an economic one. I know in the former USSR, something like 60% of people see no moral qualms about bribes, just accepting it as a daily part of life. In India and China, it is probably a higher stat. In the US and Canada, it is pretty rare, except for things that don't matter (bribing the bartender at a busy bar to make sure you don't have to ever wait).

[BigBallinStalin]

Corruption isn't one to look at. Corruption is a societal force, not an economic one. I know in the former USSR, something like 60% of people see no moral qualms about bribes, just accepting it as a daily part of life. In India and China, it is probably a higher stat. In the US and Canada, it is pretty rare, except for things that don't matter (bribing the bartender at a busy bar to make sure you don't have to ever wait).

Corruption is one outlay for doing business (making exchanges), so why isn't it an "economic force"?