Did American capitalists destroy Russian democracy?

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
Hypothesis:
China's transition to a quasi market economy succeeded because it was gradual and they maintained significant state ownership in key sectors. China also learned from Russia's mistakes in the 1990s.

Russia made the mistake of listening to American self-styled free market economics experts. These intellectual ivory tower consultants recommended Russia implement rapid wholesale privatization and a lassaize-faire economic approach.

This type of cowboy capitalism resulted in oligarchy, corruption, criminal plutocracy, economic inequality, and severe damage to the fledgling Russian democracy of the 1990s.

China—directed by its authoritarian leadership, funded by deep wells of financial capital, and guided by a network of entrepreneurs, both onshore and off—has understood the benefits of gradual economic change. Its planners introduced reform measures one at a time. Often, such reforms were instituted locally and regionally first, rather than throughout the entire country. This way, if the reforms were unsuccessful, they didn’t damage the national economy.

The Chinese gradualist approach was different than advocated by Western “experts” advising the post-Soviet government of President Boris Yeltsin.

These experts were mostly from the United States, and they advocated rapid privatization, the complete freeing of prices, and the dismantling of all economic planning. This neoliberal advice was based on the Washington Consensus, which maintained that what countries needed to grow their economies was to free prices, privatize as much as possible, and reduce the government’s role in the economy.

The fact that this consensus had not been followed by the rich countries of the world and that there was little evidence that the policies had actually worked anywhere didn’t deter legions of economists flocking to Moscow from Washington and many prominent American universities and think tanks. They proclaimed their unproven formulas with almost religious zeal.

Source credit: Edward F. Stuart, Professor of Economics, Northeastern Illinois University
 
This guy might be a factor:

"Vladimir Putin, in full Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, (born October 7, 1952, Leningrad, Russia, U.S.S.R. [now St. Petersburg, Russia]), Russian intelligence officer and politician who served as president (1999–2008, 2012– ) of Russia and also was the country’s prime minister (1999, 2008–12)."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Putin
 
This guy might be a factor:

"Vladimir Putin, in full Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, (born October 7, 1952, Leningrad, Russia, U.S.S.R. [now St. Petersburg, Russia]), Russian intelligence officer and politician who served as president (1999–2008, 2012– ) of Russia and also was the country’s prime minister (1999, 2008–12)."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Putin
Putin is the consequence of a democracy that was already failing, because cowboy capitalism had resulted in a country increasingly controlled by an oligarchy and criminal plutocrats. The Russian free press and democratic institutions had already begun to atrophy before Putin made his mark on the system.
 
Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin help facilitate the change to cowboy capitalism
He apparently foolishly gave way too much regard to American lassaize-faire economics consultants and university egg heads, with their unproven theories of the magic of mass privatization and deregulated markets. That cowboy capitalism is exactly the kind of environment which breeds criminal oligarchs and undermines democracy.
 
Not only did American-inspired, neoliberal cowboy capitalism fuel a criminal oligarchy and damage Russian democracy, but it taught Russians to never trust American theories about wholesale privatization and deregulated, free market capitalism.

The Harvard Boys Do Russia

After seven years of economic “reform” financed by billions of dollars in U.S. and other Western aid, subsidized loans and rescheduled debt, the majority of Russian people find themselves worse off economically.

The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead helped to create a system of tycoon capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western aid and plundered Russia’s wealth.

At the recent U.S.-Russian Investment Symposium at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Yuri Luzhkov, the Mayor of Moscow, made what might have seemed to many an impolite reference to his hosts. After castigating Chubais and his monetarist policies, Luzhkov, according to a report of the event, “singled out Harvard for the harm inflicted on the Russian economy by its advisers, who encouraged Chubais’s misguided approach to privatization and monetarism.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-boys-do-russia/tnamp/
 
Hypothesis:
China's transition to a quasi market economy succeeded because it was gradual and they maintained significant state ownership in key sectors. China also learned from Russia's mistakes in the 1990s.

Russia made the mistake of listening to American self-styled free market economics experts. These intellectual ivory tower consultants recommended Russia implement rapid wholesale privatization and a lassaize-faire economic approach.

This type of cowboy capitalism resulted in oligarchy, corruption, criminal plutocracy, economic inequality, and severe damage to the fledgling Russian democracy of the 1990s.

Another interpretation is that the Russians were given common sense advice then botched it much like Trump was given common sense advice on COVID but botched it due to his focus on personal economic goals.
 
This guy might be a factor:

"Vladimir Putin, in full Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, (born October 7, 1952, Leningrad, Russia, U.S.S.R. [now St. Petersburg, Russia]), Russian intelligence officer and politician who served as president (1999–2008, 2012– ) of Russia and also was the country’s prime minister (1999, 2008–12)."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Putin

Putin saw an opportunity and took it. The Russian people themselves allowed it to happen.

Again, in a similarity to the US; Donald Trump didn't "take" power, We, the People gave it to him just like we do all of our elected reps.

Putin and Trump are Scorpions in the Scorpion and the Frog story. Who is at fault in that story; the Scorpion or the Frog?

Hint:
article-2165378-13CE5595000005DC-193_636x850.jpg
 
Another interpretation is that the Russians were given common sense advice then botched it much like Trump was given common sense advice on COVID but botched it due to his focus on personal economic goals.
Yes, lots of legacy structural problems in Russia, which may have merited a more gradual approach to adopting market economics, rather than the rapid transformation the ivory tower economists from the USA advised.

I do not think western "experts" gave Russia good advice. The radical privatization and deregulation they advised had not even been tried in developed western countries, and Russia amounted to a laboratory guinea pig for their untested theories. Which is exactly what professor Stuart maintains in the OP.

The premise that radical cowboy capitalism damaged Russia's fledgling democracy is fairly well established viewpoint among scholars. What they needed was time to establish strong legal and democratic institutions, before plunging into academic economic theories of American egg head economists.

"In the early and mid-1990s scholars who had specialized in the study of communist regimes warned that the post-communist states would need to carry out radical economic and social changes as well as sweeping political transformation. In Russia, however, the consequences of a corrupted process of privatization of state assets were enormously damaging for the institutionalization of democracy."

Source credit: Alfred B. Evans, Journal of Eurasian Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 40-51
 
Yes, lots of legacy structural problems in Russia, which may have merited a more gradual approach to adopting market economics, rather than the rapid transformation the ivory tower economists from the USA advised.

I do not think western "experts" gave Russia good advice. The radical privatization and deregulation they advised had not even been tried in developed western countries, and Russia amounted to a laboratory guinea pig for their untested theories. Which is exactly what professor Stuart maintains in the OP.

The premise that radical cowboy capitalism damaged Russia's fledgling democracy is fairly well established viewpoint among scholars. What they needed was time to establish strong legal and democratic institutions, before plunging into academic economic theories of American egg head economists.

The thing about advice is it's never forced upon anyone. They had a choice and still have a choice. To blame one's life failures on others is just being a spineless weenie.
 
Hypothesis:
China's transition to a quasi market economy succeeded because it was gradual and they maintained significant state ownership in key sectors. China also learned from Russia's mistakes in the 1990s.

Russia made the mistake of listening to American self-styled free market economics experts. These intellectual ivory tower consultants recommended Russia implement rapid wholesale privatization and a lassaize-faire economic approach.

This type of cowboy capitalism resulted in oligarchy, corruption, criminal plutocracy, economic inequality, and severe damage to the fledgling Russian democracy of the 1990s.

No, Soviet Communism destroyed their economy.

For example, following the end of the Russian revolution and Lenin coming to power, Ford Motor Company built a copy of it's Rouge River plant in Russia to supply the country motor vehicles. Shortly after the plant was completed, the Communists nationalized it as the GAZ plant and took control. There were plenty of US companies willing and ready to move into Russia and start industries and businesses at the time (mid to late 1920's). But once they saw that the Communists would appropriate their investments, they all pulled out and Russia's economic development took a huge hit.

Mexico got hit the same way. More recently, it's Venezuela.
 
The thing about advice is it's never forced upon anyone. They had a choice and still have a choice. To blame one's life failures on others is just being a spineless weenie.
Russia is ultimately responsible.

The illustration here is that the "Washington Consensus" theories of free market capitalism being sold to developing nations was a load of bunk. That is weird, because we sell ourselves as the world's most savvy capitalists.

There is also coercion involved. Developing nations are told they will not qualify for loans or technical assistance if they did not sell off their national assets and adopt cowboy capitalism

I do not know if the "Washington Consensus" capitalism has been utterly discredited", but it looks like China looked at the advice American capitalists gave to Russia, were not impressed, and told them to fuck off. They developed a market economy in a more gradual and sensible way.
 
Last edited:
No, Soviet Communism destroyed their economy.

For example, following the end of the Russian revolution and Lenin coming to power, Ford Motor Company built a copy of it's Rouge River plant in Russia to supply the country motor vehicles. Shortly after the plant was completed, the Communists nationalized it as the GAZ plant and took control. There were plenty of US companies willing and ready to move into Russia and start industries and businesses at the time (mid to late 1920's). But once they saw that the Communists would appropriate their investments, they all pulled out and Russia's economic development took a huge hit.

Mexico got hit the same way. More recently, it's Venezuela.

As stated in the thread title, the topic is about what dealt a death blow to Russian democracy. Not the economy.

Nobody is looking to replicate a Stalinist command economy.
 
Russia is ultimately responsible.

The illustration here is that the "Washington Consensus" theories of free market capitalism being sold to developing nations was a load of bunk. That is weird, because we sell ourselves as the world's most savvy capitalists.

There is also coercion involved. Developing nations are told they will not qualify for loans or technical assistance if they did not sell off their national assets and adopt cowboy capitalism

I do not know if the "Washington Consensus" capitalism has been utterly discredited", but it looks like China looked at the advice American capitalists gave to Russia, were not impressed, and told them to fuck off. They developed a market economy in a more gradual and sensible way.

Which is why the US and other intelligent nations don't have one. Why do you think the Russians were so stupid?

Defining limits on how a group loans money isn't "coercion". They're capitalists, not socialists.

A nation would have to be truly stupid to blindly follow the advice of any one person or any one group.
 
As stated in the thread title, the topic is about what dealt a death blow to Russian democracy. Not the economy.

Nobody is looking to replicate a Stalinist command economy.

My guess is the same reason why Iraq's democracy struggles and could still fail. It's the same reason Fareed Zakaria describes in both his books “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy” and "The Post-American World"; for democracy to flourish there are minimum requirements such as income and security. Without a fundamental base to build upon, democracy can't thrive so it dies.
 
Interesting thread. Read Ralston's book quoted below for some insight. But money manages America too today and if you doubt read 'Dark Money'.

'*Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right' by Jane Mayer

"Why is America living in an age of profound economic inequality? Why, despite the desperate need to address climate change, have even modest environmental efforts been defeated again and again? Why have protections for employees been decimated? Why do hedge-fund billionaires pay a far lower tax rate than middle-class workers?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money



"Capitalism is the ownership and use of the concrete but dynamic elements in a society - what is commonly known as the means of production. A capitalist is someone who produces more capital through the production of the means he owns. This necessitates the periodic reinvestment of part of the capital earned into the repair, modernization and expansion of the means. Capitalism is therefore the ownership of an abstraction called capital, rendered concrete by its ownership of the means of production, which through actual production creates new capital.... However, capitalism as conceived today tends to revolve around something called the profit motive, even though profit is neither a cause of capitalism nor at the heart of the capitalist action. Profit is a useful result of the process, nothing more. As for the ownership of the means of production, this has been superseded by their management. And yet, to manage is to administer, which is a bureaucratic function. Alternately, there is a growing reliance upon the use of capital itself to produce new capital. But that is speculation, not production. Much of the development of the means of production is now rejected as unprofitable and, frankly, beneath the dignity of the modern manager, who would rather leave such labour and factory-intensive "dirty" work to Third World societies. Finally , the contemporary idea of capitalism grandly presents "service" as its new sophisticated manifestation. But the selling of one's own skills is not a capitalist art. And most of the jobs being created by the service industries are with the exception of the high-technology sector descendants of the pre-eighteenth-century commerce in trade and services." p360 'Voltaire's Bas_tards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul

....If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society." Robert Locke

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/
 
My guess is the same reason why Iraq's democracy struggles and could still fail. It's the same reason Fareed Zakaria describes in both his books “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy” and "The Post-American World"; for democracy to flourish there are minimum requirements such as income and security. Without a fundamental base to build upon, democracy can't thrive so it dies.

Good point. I believe it is in our interest to promote democracy and market-oriented economies.

But the terrible advice we give, or try to impose, on places like Iraq and Russia are going to give western democracy and capitalism a bad name. We put little thought into consideration of local histories and customs when we lecture about the magic of lassaize-faire capitalism. I can say unequivocally that 30 years ago, American capitalism and western-versions of democracy were held in relatively high esteem in Russia. However, their experience with wholesale privatization and deregulation in the 1990s has gone a long way in discrediting American-style capitalism in their eyes
 
Good point. I believe it is in our interest to promote democracy and market-oriented economies.

But the terrible advice we give, or try to impose, on places like Iraq and Russia are going to give western democracy and capitalism a bad name. We put little thought into consideration of local histories and customs when we lecture about the magic of lassaize-faire capitalism. I can say unequivocally that 30 years ago, American capitalism and western-versions of democracy were held in relatively high esteem in Russia. However, their experience with wholesale privatization and deregulation in the 1990s has gone a long way in discrediting American-style capitalism in their eyes

How can you logically connnect a country the US invaded and collapsed their country with Mother Russia?

Again, a major problem in the world are spineless cowards who blame others for their own problems.
 
How can you logically connnect a country the US invaded and collapsed their country with Mother Russia?

Again, a major problem in the world are spineless cowards who blame others for their own problems.

Stating that the adoption of American-inspired lassaize-faire capitalism led to a orgy of unregulated and criminal oligarchy is hardly spineless.

It is a statement of fact that is shared and articulated by many prominent scholars.

The mistake that was made was that the Russian goverment did not recognize what a substantial risk it was to plunge headlong into untested theories of lassaize faire capitalism as rapidly as they did. They did not yet have robust legal and democratic institutions.
 
Stating that the adoption of American-inspired lassaize-faire capitalism led to a orgy of unregulated and criminal oligarchy is hardly spineless.

It is a statement of fact that is shared and articulated by many prominent scholars.

The mistake that was made was that the Russian goverment did not recognize what a substantial risk it was to plunge headlong into untested theories of lassaize faire capitalism as rapidly as they did
Key word "adoption". The Russians had choices and they chose poorly.


Agreed; after 70 years of communism, the Russians fucked up their initial attempt at democracy. 30 years later and they are still fucking it up with President-for-Life Putin.
 
Back
Top