AMORAL CAPITALISM

How did the fanbase of Russia in the United States shift from the far left of the political spectrum to a location on the right side of that spectrum? After all, just three decades ago no respectable member of the Republican Party in the United States would have been kissing up Russia or its then parent, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The short answer is that the fanbase of Russia in the United States moved because Russia itself moved from Communism to what might be called Amoral Capitalism, or maybe No-Morality Capitalism.

For much of the 20th Century, from 1917 to 1991, Communism provided the structure for the Russian economy, government, and society. Communism is based on common ownership of the means of production, usually defined broadly. In practice, common ownership is government ownership.

The antithesis of Communism is Capitalism. Under pure Capitalism, the economic system is totally under private control. In practice, however, pure Capitalism does not exist, at least to any significant degree. What does exist is often called a mixed economy. In a mixed economy, both the private sector and government engage in economic activity.

How economic activities are allocated between the private sector and government in a mixed economy is a subject of never ending debate. Proponents of each side in the debate are prone to apocalyptic language regarding the various pros and cons. Very generally, the Democratic Party sees a larger role for government than does the Republican Party. Democrats on the extreme left end of the political spectrum desire a very large role for government. Republicans on the right end of the political spectrum want as little government as possible, maybe even less government than that.

Communism in Russia and the other member republics of the USSR eroded in the 1980s. Some observers argue that Communism deteriorated primarily because of its incompatibility with human individualism. Other observers attribute its fall primarily to Ronald Reagan, the U.S. President for much of the decade, and a firm believer in as much Capitalism as possible.

Whatever the cause of the fall, Communism in Russia and the USSR was done. The U.S. fans of Russia on the extreme left of the political spectrum had to look elsewhere for their Big Government fix.

But what was to take the place of Communism as the guiding principle for the Russian economy, government, and society? The answer has only slowly emerged, and the situation is still quite murky. A form of Capitalism, however, appears to have risen to power. Private economic activity is extensive, but government is less an overseer and arbiter of that activity than a participant. The government rules and regulations that are imposed on the private sector in a largely mixed economy seem, in present-day Russia, to be not so much imposed as nefariously negotiated, bargained for, and bought.

Some observers might characterize this result as corrupt: the private sector only needs to buy its way to success. Other observers, however, might find this result attractive. Among those possible fans are believers in pure, or almost pure, Capitalism. The economy is under private control, some of it directly and some as a result of a symbiotic, incestuous relationship with government. This form of Capitalism is divorced from morality; it is Amoral Capitalism.

Thus, the new U.S. fans of Russia can be found in the portion of the U.S. political spectrum that desires unfettered economic freedom. Indeed, these U.S. fans may well envy the Capitalists of Russia with their Amoral Capitalism. Government rules and regulations that succumb to the private sector’s desires and dollars, well that’s just fine.