Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Simon Retallack: Well, it’s certainly true that a lot of economic activity that takes place in the global economy involves corruption. There are plenty of examples of companies that operate in a corrupt way, in partnership with corrupt governments across the world, whether it’s to win contracts to build infrastructure or whether it’s to extract natural resources in different countries; we know that in many instances it involves bribery, payoffs, backhanders, and sometimes huge transfers of funds into private bank accounts of the government ministers in different countries And, I think, there’s no one that can deny that this happens. People try to stop it and there are anti-corruption drives, but it is clearly a problem and it stems from corruption in the political system, not just in obvious failing states in the poorest parts of the world, but in the most developed states. I think the U.S.’s political system is, for all intensive purposes, corrupt. I think the way that politicians are dependent on corporate donations to run their election campaigns, for the Senate and for the U.S. Congress and for the White House, totally makes them indebted to vested interests that can’t possibly enable them to serve the interests of the people that actually elect them, which is the people; and it’s a very hard system to change because the holders of – or the people that have designed or benefit from this system have no interest in changing it. The only way to do it in the end is through public pressure, and relentless public pressure, through the media and civil society groups still have a huge task to play to build up that -- those coalitions of action and of public pressure so that governments and corporations that engage in corrupt activities cease from doing so.

by Simon Retallack

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Sohrab Mahdavi: All economic systems are to some extent corrupt, I mean, there’s the seed of corruption in any system. How to dismantle it is something that mostly non-state entities, nomadic entities, entities outside of the purview of the system will do their job. The problem is that those entities are being dominated by state entities in the current system -- under the current system. There’s also the problem of development. The definition of development, I think again, development has been defined by the West over the past 2 to 3 centuries. The West has determined what development means and it has meant different things at different times but there’s a general drift, and that general drift is for development to mean growth in material sense to make more money, to make more and to consume more, which increases the chance of corruption which all systems have in common.

by Sohrab Mahdavi

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Song Kosal: It is not inherently corrupt. But it has its weakness. [With some truth,] someone who has strong responsibilities terminate the economic system.

by Song Kosal

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Stephanie Robinson: I think that it really depends on which economic system one is speaking of. If we are talking about capitalism I would say that it is a very complex system, it’s a complex thing, operating at very different levels and means very different things to institutions and has various mechanisms that contribute to it being able to be effective. If the question is whether or not the market itself and the economics itself is inherently evil, inherently, I think, corrupt was the question I would say that I don’t think that it is. I do think that if you look at things like the WTO or the IMF that they probably are. Dismantling the aspects of capitalistic arrangements however is very difficult and it requires to have an organized democratic movement for those people who are affected and disaffected to be able to come together to allow the restoration of moral and democratic constraints on the market as well as on the economic processes. In short, the answer is probably that the market itself is not inherently corrupt. The systems and many people that have created these systems have systemically embedded in how many of these systems, in particular the capitalistic system, operates. But it really takes what I think that we are gesturing at, doing here and that is bringing together a more democratic movement in order to restore and to bring moral ideals and perspectives to the processes that we’re talking about.

by Stephanie Robinson

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Steve Earle: I think that when you give, the power corrupts. And when an economic system is made the center of our civilization. In other words, everything is subservient to the market. In other words, every idea, every policy that we make is determined by the market, what the market will bear, what the market can handle -is what that means. What’s good for the market-the idea that what's good for the market is good for people and what's good for the market is good for people who are invested in the market. It’s a lie. It's a fundamental lie. I think as long as we put economics first, as long as we vote our pocketbooks first in elections, rather than our conscience and our hearts, then our system will be inherently corrupt. And I think there's no quick fix for that. I think it requires literally deciding that you're going to - that you want to live in a better world and teaching your children that that’s possible and that it's not farfetched, and that if we work hard enough and long enough that we can arrive at a system that's based on doing what's right, rather than doing what's expedient.

by Steve Earle

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Sulak Sivaraksa: Of course, economic system right now is corrupt. Corruptions will eventually destroy itself. As George Orwell said, the Soviet Union was very corrupt. It had no moral legitimacy, and it will disintegrate. Nobody believed him when he said that. And the Soviet Union did really disintegrate, it’s gone. Likewise, the present economic system is unjust, with no moral legitimacy. It helps the rich become much more powerful. In fact, it is working around the American empire, which is linked directly to national corporations. It uses money [wastely] for weapons, which is no good for anybody. It use weapon to destroy other countries, other people who disagree with American empire. It use advertising, mostly false, nothing true. So, on the one hand, economic system like this will destroy itself. Somebody said American empire will come to an end within 20 years; whether that would happen or not, nothing for me to say. But, I think, we must try to cultivate something alternative to the present economic system, look for politic economics, Christian economics, Islamic economics. When these collapse the present system collapse, like the Soviet Union, then I think we will have something more positive, because in the Soviet Union they did no preparation. That’s why the people in Russia suffer much more than before. I am not a prophet to tell how to destroy the present economic system, but I am of opinion that we should propose alternative to the present economic system, which is available in many parts of Asia, in many cultures which using indigenous system, the poor learning from each other.

by Sulak Sivaraksa

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Susan George: Well, I don’t think corrupt is exactly the right word because corruption means that you are paying someone for certain other types of behavior. But I would say that the rules of our economic system very definitely do reward those who already have wealth, and they do not reward those who have nothing. And if you don’t have social entitlements in a system, and if you have social entitlements, it’s because they were fought for, they were not given away, they were earned, they were struggled for, and, well, the poor people are going to remain poor. There is a so called power law of 80/20 distribution. In other words, the 80 percent of the population will get only 20 percent of the wealth, while 20 percent of the population will get 80 percent of the wealth. And we have gone well beyond that now. For example, we have in the world distribution, the top 20 percent has over 85 percent of the wealth now, whereas the bottom 20 percent has less than 1 percent of the wealth. So, if we want a different distribution, then we have to fight for redistribution because the natural distribution in an economic system without rules to limit -- what is called by the question corruption and which I would call rather an imbalance or vulnerability of the poor -- then the rich will always get a little bit more, and the poor will always get a little bit less. We have to support social struggles of the poor, so that their needs can be recognized and satisfied; and this will never happen spontaneously because those that have are happy to remain that way, and as a class they never give up spontaneously their wealth although they may do so individually. Many do individually but, as a class, this never happens spontaneously. It only happens through social movements and through social struggle.

by Susan George

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Swami Pragyapad: Answertext will be available soon.

by Swami Pragyapad

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Sydney Possuelo: If the economical system is socially inherently corrupt ... I think that it [] a lot of corruption. The forms with which we relate ourselves, may it be the economy between persons or states, use the pressure, power and force to exert pressure on others. How can we desmantle this system without trauma, without big social traumata? This is the big question, how to desmantle it. I couldn’t give a correct answer to this question. I can only say that we have to generate more ethical standards of behaviour, more human standards between the persons so that this can be dismantled without bigger fights, without bigger disasters for the humanity. We have to search for a way to dismantle this pacifically. This [has not been] easy, this [has not been] simple to search for this way. It is one of the big questions how to dismantle this system. How can we do this? But I believe, I think that only through an internal revolution of values, values that we can give to our kids when they are small, respect and love of others that we can change slowly. These transformations won’t change in an abrupt way [].

by Sydney Possuelo

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Takashi Kiuchi: Our economic system inherently corrupt; yes, that's a fact. But what we should be aware of is the fact that we've been putting too much expectations on the current economic system. And until we realize that we have more important things out there than what the economic system creates for us, corruption we will be there until we change our value system; money, wealth or what we have is not necessarily so important to our life. There are more important things than economic reasons, and until we are aware of this and we get comfortable with other values, this corruption will stay with us. It's a very unfortunate thing.

by Takashi Kiuchi

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Tamas St. Auby: Yes, the current economic system is inherently corrupt as the legal and cultural system is corrupt, since the entire system is based on the laws of economaniacs and pleonexiacs. The direct democracy and the strike dismantles it. The direct democracy from below and the strike from above dismantles it.

by Tamas St. Auby

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Tania Bruguera: The contemporary economic system is corrupt because it´s a system regulated by the monetary profit. And it´s precisely regulated by the [inaudible] of wealth and it´s almost as if it was a system in which one hoards objects and not knowledge, in which one doesn´t hoard other things. I think that one of the [inaudible] to show would be that this same economic system has in itself to [inaudible] all its structures in which one can, one develops and what are the bases and laws [inaudible] and develop. But it would also be good that creating a regulated system had importance, the importance and when I [inaudible] I say a system which regulates that it´s important and why it is important and for what it is important, that not only the coin was a criteria and with the hoarding of [inaudible] materials but that this system had importance, importance to the actions they are doing and it´s a system which also regulates the ethic of exchange.

by Tania Bruguera

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Tavis Smiley: Economic systems are not my area of expertise. But one doesn’t have to be an economist to know that our economic systems are inherently corrupt, always have been. And I suspect for the foreseeable future will be until we start talking about the kind of priorities that we have, or quite frankly the kind of priorities that we need to have but in fact don’t have. How we go about dismantling it, again, not something that I can address with any level of expertise. But I think that just acknowledging that our systems are corrupt and getting more people to raise those kinds of questions, not just at IMF conferences but indeed in the barrios and the ghettos and the streets of our cities and towns around the world, trying to raise this issue higher up on the American and on the world agenda, I think is important. But just acknowledging that these systems are corrupt and starting to have some real dialogue about it, I think, can advance the cause of creating a system, whatever that might be, that is more fair and that is more equitable. But I think it starts with valuing the least among us. Minimum wage. Livable wage for those who are doing the real work, the hard work of making cities and countries well. But it’s about our shifting our priorities, and that’s something that we have not yet found the courage to do.

by Tavis Smiley

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Tegla Loroupe: Answertext will be available soon.

by Tegla Loroupe

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Thenmozhi Soundararajan: There is no question to me that the current economic system is corrupt. I think what we really should look at is like what are the levels of action you can have. Once again, I think one of the themes I’m always going to be talking about is instead of going global or local is to look at ways that you can act locally that will then have impacts globally. One way, I think, is to really think about really shifting our language around how we want to talk about our action toward the system. I don’t think we should talk about lifestyles that are alternatives to consumerism. I think we need to talk about lifestyles that are parallel to materialism. What would be those parallels? Really think about the definitions and the vocabulary that you use, so that every time you talk about that you subvert the ideology, you subvert the mythology that they created around making what is unjust palatably and morally for us. I think that what’s also really important is that we move away from binaries. I think there’s a sense as movements that you have more street credibility if you’re in the streets versus people that are doing electoral work. I think what we need to do is be strategic and use the strategy that make sense, use that tactic that make sense for our strategy at the moment. I think there’s no question right now we need to take back our governments. I think that as young people we feel like we have very little electoral control, and even as countries’ populations are getting younger, the people in power are getting older. So, I think we need to re-engage with the political system, but not in a way that de-radicalizes us. I think we need to take the slogans and language that we have in the streets into their boardrooms and into their house of representatives, but as leaders and as peers. I think one thing that really happens in this conversation is that we get caught up into a frame around age where young people are framed in the media as apathetic. Young people are not engaged in these issues. But almost all of the anti-consumer movements that I’ve seen and all of the movements that result from corporate globalization and their impacts on the ground are fundamentally led by intergenerational and youth-led movements. And so, I think we need to take that political power that we have and translate that into an ideological vision that we manifest in a decentralized way in our local communities. In the ways that we may like locally raise our own food, that we might share services with each other or barter that work, and really look at the creating of a culture that’s a parallel to the lifestyle materialism and consumption that they’ve set up for us.

by Thenmozhi Soundararajan

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Tu Weiming: Economic system that has evolved over a long period of time, it’s not the question about corruption, it’s the question that the economic system is predicated on various kinds of forces and these forces actually unintentionally have led to all kinds of negative consequences. And the – there are many, many economic systems functioning and the most powerful economic system is the one that is embodied by the United States and of course by some of the western countries that’s so-called free trade market economy. Unfortunately, we know there's no perfect market, there's no comprehensive market, there's no equitable market. As a result, those who are powerful become the beneficiaries of this process and those who are marginalized, those who are eradicated to the background will not be able to really understand and to take part in this particular process of benefiting from the economic system. So this economic structure is flawed in a very fundamental way, but it’s too idealistic or even romantic to believe that this system can be easily dismantled. Of course it’s not good enough simply to fix that or incrementally. Their conceptual and total re-conceptualization of the economic system is absolute necessary. One feature of globalization as a result of science and technology, especially communication and information technology, is that the economic system is not only receptive to these kind of changes, it is necessary for a vibrant economic system to be responsive to these kind of systems, this kind of science and technologies. And if this spread of science and technology is fast, is comprehensive and then there are possibilities of restructuring this particular system, and it is not dismantling.

by Tu Weiming

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Udi Aloni: First answer is yes. The answer is it corrupt? Definitely it is corrupt. In order to change it we have to go deep to how the system work. I think even though Marxism failed it is a productive thing. We should learn a lot from the criticisms in it's had on the capitalist system. The corruption is so inherent that it's not built by one conspirator, one corrupted person, one corrupted corporation. There is something built in that it's using and the greed is the main system that the West is working. I think all of us have to try to think from the beginning. To go back to as [Valtrebinimen] said we should go back to revolution that fails and try to fix them. I know that alternative to capitalism failed and that the main power of capitalism is that there is no other alternative. Of course there are other alternatives. I'm sure that some of them exist in a Marxist way of thinking. But more to understand religion, humankind, human needs. And it's a long process of revolution and evolution together. This system has to end. And one way is just to fight it. And another group should rethink what we can offer to make it better. Maybe in a certain time we should have again conviction that it can be changed, because the system built itself to hold the corruption forever by making us very pessimistic. They gave us conspiracy theories so we think we cannot fight the power. They make us very cynical. And they taught us that there is no other alternative. I think it's time to bring hope that there is alternative. That there were radical changers. That we should start this today. And there are tools in the past already that help us understand how to do it.

by Udi Aloni

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Valentina Melnikova: Yes of course, modern economics is corrupt because business cannot develop itself freely and often depends on decisions of officials. And it's clear that positive decisions can be bought. My answer would be that we don’t need to destroy anything. We can develop economical systems so that they could serve not only business owners but also to the benefit of all population on Earth. Of course, it would take very much time to change this, and great efforts are necessary which often bring no success. But we cannot get the Paradise on Earth in one single day. Conflicts, popular discontent and changes in economical systems move our life. The reducing of corruption is a question of time and of people’s endeavours. How could we achieve that time doesn't reinforce corruption but reduces it? This is the question of our intellect, our arrangement with business and politicians.

by Valentina Melnikova

Sep 9, 2006 10:40:00 AM cite

Vesna Pesic: Answertext will be available soon.

by Vesna Pesic