Ayn Rand's Capitalism In Russia?
C.S. Mills
Now that Russia has shed communism, what impact is Ayn Rand's system of
thought having in Russia?
Rand (her pseudonym) was an author and self-proclaimed prophet who was
born in St. Petersburg, Russia. Living and writing in the United States,
she used her books (fiction and nonfiction) as a means of stamping out
the Christian and Jewish altruism which she felt had enabled the
Bolshevik Revolution - the reason her family and their friends had lost
their status, property and wealth. Her economics were laissez-faire.
Libertarianism (anti-government) was an offshoot of her system of
thought.
Many of Rand's followers (Rand herself died in the 1970s) are of Russian
heritage. So it is natural to assume that they would desire to have an
impact upon the new Russia. What impact _are_ laissez-faire capitalism,
libertarianism, and/or law-of-the-jungle economics having now in that
country?
C.S. Mills
c...@ConnectI.com
Beebit
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:45:39 -0700, "C.S. Mills" <c...@ConnectI.com> wrote:
>
>Now that Russia has shed communism, what impact is Ayn Rand's system of
>thought having in Russia?
>
'bout as much as Nietzsche's. I remember in the '89 or '90 an old friend
getting all excited about what he was reading (it only having been made
available thanks to the (then) new "openness"). I rhetorically asked him, "And
who the *hell* reads Nietzsche in the West? Certainly not the people who were
developing, making, and selling consumer products at home and high-technology to
the Soviet Union: they're just too busy.
>
>Many of Rand's followers (Rand herself died in the 1970s) are of Russian
>heritage. So it is natural to assume that they would desire to have an
>impact upon the new Russia.
You might think so.
> What impact _are_ laissez-faire capitalism,
>libertarianism, and/or law-of-the-jungle economics having now in that
>country?
>
Good grief! Don't you read the papers?
Right now there's anarchy, chaos, lawlessness, and occasional spots of
despotism. "Libertarianism" seems to mean that a few are free to act as they
see fit (even to the point of "removing" with impunity people inconvenient to
them), while everyone else must somehow scramble for survival.
Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. On the one hand, people who
must sell their labour have lost all protection; even to getting their wages
paid. In the "socialist" West, at least that much is more or less guaranteed
inasmuch as a firm becomes insolvent if it cannot meet the payroll, and wages
take absolute priority when paying creditors. Arguably the only thing which
guarantees relative quiet for the moment in Russia is the fact that nobody is
being thrown out of their flat because the rent is not being paid, and that
somehow essential services (schools and hospitals, for a start) are being
maintained, owing more to AR's despised "altruism" than to "jungle-law
economics".
Outside the metropolitan centres the local economy such as it is runs on barter.
Local "bonzes" maintain some sort of control over their own adherents whilst
demanding (and getting) tribute from elected officials who are not members of
the "clan". Sometimes, particularly in the bigger towns, local clans end up in
conflict over territory and influence with resulting violence reminiscent of
"gangland" during the "Roaring '20's" or of the private warfare of the early
Middle Ages. Ordinary citizens are hemmed in by a million pettifogging
regulations and bullied by thugs in and out of uniform. A typical town-dweller
may have a "day" job in, say, medicine or education but might trade in the local
open-air market because wages are over half a year in arrears. Such a trader
will have to pay taxes and tribute "right and left", in the local parlance.
There is even a uniformed "tax police" in Russia, which makes raids on the
markets in full riot gear to beat the living daylights out of potential
tax-evaders among the small traders. The big traders, stall owners, etc. have
already made the requisite pay-offs and are left alone.
Anyone and everyone in any position of authority, however small, can be relied
upon to abuse that position to the fullest extent for short-term selfish gain.
Honesty, even "professionalism", is only for the stupid and naive. Of course,
occasionally, someone will "stick out" and get stomped on, either by the forces
of the law or by the "fifth estate". The old saying "Bog vysokij, tsarj
dalekij"[1] is still very apt: in what many continue to see as the Good Old Days
(or at least the Not So Bad Old Days) the Party would occasionally provide a
means of redress which in the West would be provided by review committees,
ombudsmen, and the like.
No, "prosperity for the few, and hopeless misery for the many" is not a recipe
for social stability, and increased force and violence will be ultimately the
only way the elite's dominance can be sustained. At least in South America the
apparatus of coercion is well-fed and maintained; whereas Russia's new elite is
too stupid even to do that, as military and police go months without wages.
It isn't as though we are dealing with Carnegies, Rockefellers, Morgans, Edisons
or Fords here. Most of the "new capitalists" got their money and power by
embezzling the one and abusing the other, and ensuring that they were in the
right place to get the biggest pieces of the privatisation pie. The process was
known as "prikhvatisatsia", a coinage which implies "grabbing" or "embezzling".
Otherwise the directors of state-owned enterprises, freed of detailed control
from the ministries in Moscow, buy cars and build luxury houses with diverted
income instead of meeting the payroll or paying suppliers. There has been a
tremendous flight of capital: moneys extorted or embezzled often find their way
into private accounts held abroad, and almost never return as investment.
Russia's new millionaires should be on their knees every day humbly thanking
their God that they are not in People's China, for in China such
malfeasers-in-office and abusers of the public trust are often shot. The
possibility of an authoritarian backlash is not to be excluded, the only
question being from which side of the political spectrum. The Chinese example
is potent: a hitherto backward and impoverished empire is being transformed into
an economic powerhouse even as we watch, even if the policies implemented by the
government do not accord to the tenets of "libertarianism" and such. No less
potent in another direction is the Western "social market" model, a model which
it has become fashionable among some to malign, but has nevertheless ensured a
degree of political freedom and material prosperity for many people unsurpassed
in the history of the world.
nB.
[1] "God is high above, the tsar is far away." The Chinese have an equivalent,
"Heaven is high above, the emperor is far away." Both of these far-flung
empires had the problem of despotism in the centre and weakness at the
extremities, each causing and caused by the other.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Confucius say,
"Great man does what is moral, small man does only what is profitable."
Do what is moral, help stop junk email, support CAUCE: http://www.cauce.org