Individual privileges vs. state efficiency. I don't think any degree of Eastern collectivism is going to help, at least not if the problem is extractors vs. creators. China, the birthplace of Confucius is corrupt to the core. Clearly, there is something about collectivism and authoritarianism that tends to make these problems worse.
There are several mechanisms in modern society that act as substitutes for reputation: criminal records and credit scores, for example. Transparency and accountability are long-held values in the West. They were given rise to by a lack of an all-encompassing central authority in society with powerful groups slowly learning to maintain an equilibrium through rule of law. Separation of powers was a key concept formulated by the French philosopher Montesquieu in the 18th century. Stiff international competition forced higher levels of co-operation within individual states in Europe. Egalitarianism has been particularly strong in the north of Europe. There was no tall and narrow social pyramid in the sparsely populated north. Everybody considered their birthright to be able to gun for the top spot in Viking society depending on their individual qualities. History has demonstrated that the "everybody is an alpha" mindset tends to give rise to the most egalitarian societies.
Very true. The corruption of the Qing reached unprecedented levels during the last days of the Empire, but corruption is an endemic feature in all human constructs, since man himself is a flawed, corrupt, sinful creature - to borrow from Western theology. Corruption is not only limited to centralized, authoritarian state, but equally endemic in supposed egalitarian republics/democracies: Athens of Pericles, Carthage of Hannibal, Rome of the Gracchi, Paris of le Directoire, to all current Western "democracies." The more interesting analysis would be to evaluate the features in various human constructs that functioned well, under certain circumstances.
The Kalmar Union collapsed due to political infighting among the nobility who envisioned themselves as "alpha." Here is a clear historical example of malfunction of "egalitarian" sentiments in political organization. Kalmar is not the only example, as one merely needs to be familiar with the political lunacy of the Holy Roman Empire, political farce of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the political fragmentation of Italian polis, and the political anarchy of the Revolution. One could easily argue that the lack of all-encompassing central authority in these areas of Europe left them backwards for centuries, until they were dragged into modernity by the sheer will of autarchs in the vein of Peter the Great of Russia, Frederick II of Prussia, the House of Savoy, von Bismark of Germany, and the demigod Bonaparte.
The fundamental reality of the world is that life is inherently unfair, men are created unequal in aptitude and abilities, and 20th century socio-cultural attempts at forcing equality and egalitarianism on a polity always resulted in mass slaughter and misery. Is the concept of equality a net positive or negative in human constructs? Is the concept of egalitarianism benefit or hazard in political operation? Is it moral to delude gammas and epsilon morons into thinking they are "created equal" as the alpha and betas? In short, why is the modern conception of liberté, égalité, fraternité the philosophical foundation of Western political thought? By what evidence of history, religious, or rational observations do the modern West cling to the aforementioned trinity of false ideas? Did not the central theme of Western theological thought begin with Adam and Woman reaching beyond their station allotted by the creator? Was it not the Western God who declared "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them."
My point was that having a centralized authoritarian state is of no help in the fight against corruption.
I think the main driver of changes in power structures is technological development, mainly in communications. The development of central authority was probably inevitable, or maybe even beneficial from a broad perspective under certain conditions in the past but the existence of central authority alone does not make a society collectivistic. Modern states are all strong central authorities from a historical perspective but how those states are governed and how the states govern can be very different in different countries.
Totalitarianism of any brand will always result in mass slaughter and misery.
What about the Human Development Index? It is the highest in societies that believe in the dignity of all individuals and consider their welfare important. (There are other prerequisites to it as well but those beliefs are material.) Your concept of "gammas" and "epsilon morons" is a path taken by some parts of Western Civilization at certain times and many other civilizations in the past and is a tried and true method to achieve truly ghastly results.
My point is to illustrate that the propaganda of egalitarianism and democracy does not shield a society from corruption.
Human Development Index illustrates the hubris of the Leftist masters in assigning virtues to societies based on their arbitrary measures: 1) infant mortality 2) "education" levels 3) GDP. I can easily create another "index" to assign societal virtues based on different arbitrary measures -1) societal conformity 2) theological actualization 3) GDP growth - and make ISIS the ideal human development civilization.
The UN "infant mortality" specifically omits the willful destruction of the unborn in their statistical measures. As for "education" levels, Egypt under Mubarak had the highest PhDs per capita, but did not make that misbegotten society the utopian dream for workers.
The wholesale liquidation of gammas and epsilon morons were direct influence of deluded fools who either could not conceptualize their "egalitarian" society, whilst these existed, or imputed low quality of life to these individuals. Eugenics and euthanasia are more vehemently championed by social reformers who want human rights and egalitarianism. That the industrialized mass killings of gammas and epsilon morons occurred in the West, so enthralled by the lunacy of egalitarianism and human rights, demonstrates the pernicious danger of these false concepts inflict upon the human psyche.
You obviously didn't get the memo on what kind of reputation eugenics have had for the past half-century or so.
Nazis who engaged in industrialized mass killings of people they considered inferior did not do so in the name of egalitarianism and human rights. On the contrary, they believed precisely in the notion of "gammas and epsilon morons" unworthy of life precisely for the lack of any belief in basic human dignity or rights.
Human rights are quite simply a set of minimum standards by which everyone, even the most "unworthy" of individuals is to be treated. They include things like a ban on torture. If you are in favor of things like banning torture, then you are a supporter of human rights.
How did such muck as National Socialism gain traction in Germany? Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fürher. How can you ignore the egalitarian rot that underlie the Nazi propaganda of government legitimacy somehow deriving from the "Volk"/people? The poison of egalitarianism began with the Revolution, giving birth to the lunacy of human rights, or rather the "declaration of rights of man and citizen," with which the gammas and the epsilon morons overthrew their betters setting-up the Terror.
Any rational human being reflecting upon the consequences of gammas and epsilon morons grasping at that which is beyond their aptitude would recognize the fallacy of egalitarianism and human rights. The accomplishments of the Terror were only bested by the Nazis in their industrial killings, which in turn were outclassed by the communist muck in Russia by a factor of 5, Maoist meatbags by over a factor of 10, and equaled by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields.
People ought to know their social and political station. Superior men do not kill or hate those who are inferior; it would be as insane as man hating swine. The aristocracy did not scheme to cause more misery to their serfs because serfs did not enter into their minds. Only those who are driven by envy and insecurity born of their low station perpetuate the mass killings that baffle the rational human mind.