This blog is about the parallelism between very disparate entities, like the confluence between hyper-capitalism and hyper-personalization. Yes, this comparison is between America and Russia, however unlikely it may seem. Although America is still believed to be the “land of opportunity,” where an individual can follow his/her dreams in pursuit of happiness, it still struggles to provide equal opportunity for specific racial minorities and certain classes of immigrants. In Russia, by comparison, the disparity between rich and poor—between privileged and unprivileged—is the fully intended feature of government policy. Both countries, it should be noted, house some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, like multi-billionaires whose fortunes exceed the annual income of most nations. While “conservative” politicians in America continue to propose cuts or even elimination of the wealth tax, Russia has no inheritance tax. So, those American politicians who euphemistically call themselves “conservative” have more in common with Russian kleptocracy than American democracy. In different degrees, both countries favor the wealthy.

 

Although America does have a progressive tax system, every time a Republican majority seizes control of Congress, the Party attempts to lower taxes for wealthy corporations and individuals. The last Republican majority lowered the highest corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Moreover, property investors/developers can take advantage of significant expense and depreciation tax breaks. And many multi-billion dollar corporations have evaded taxation completely (at least until a minimum tax law recently passed by Democrats is implemented). Meanwhile, Russia has maintained a flat tax rate of 13% since 2001, effectively abandoning any pretense of wealth redistribution. But, more significantly, individual Russian oligarchs can hide their accumulated wealth and pilfered “income” from state owned industries and operations—that is, their grift—in government approved “cooperatives” and in undeclared foreign holdings that include both real estate and bank accounts. Between 1993 and 2018, for example, Russian gas/oil production has resulted in a massive 250% trade surplus. But the official reserve estimate is only 25%. The oligarchs hold the difference in offshore assets “which exceed one year of the national GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official financial assets held by Russian households.” ¹ Some still control their foreign investments from Russia. Others prefer to live abroad almost exclusively, in cities like London, Monaco, or New York. One of the ironies of this wealth-privileged parallelism between Russia and America is that Russian money laundering in Western enterprises has also enriched some Western billionaires as well. Therefore, both Western and Russian parasites are feeding off the income and wealth created by average Russians. Can you see the surprising, if unlikely, paradox here? Capitalism and kleptocracy embrace in two directly opposing economic systems.

 

One incidence of an American enterprise benefiting from purloined Russian money is uniquely relevant to my American readers. Back in 2016, one of Donald Trump’s sons was asked how the Trump organization continued to raise money for investments after multiple bankruptcies closed the door to American bank loans. His reply was straightforward: Russian money. Also in 2016, much was made of Donald Trump’s desire to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He already had a builder in tow, but, in Putin’s Russia, he would need the Russian President’s blessing. How he intended to fund this project is not known, but he already had loans with a foreign bank whose most important Board member was Putin.  His pitch to Putin surrogates included the offer of an executive suite on the top floor for the Russian President. But that bribe-like offer had a greater significance to the parallelism topic of this blog. For it also offered President Putin a “quid pro quo” opportunity. It should be noted that he had begun his KGB career as a spy handler, actively recruiting German, French, and Spanish contacts to obtain Western technology. How could an experienced “handler” not recognize Trump’s offer as an opportunity to recruit this perfectly positioned “idiot source”? Besides, Trump was already compromised by his dependence on oligarch money grifted from the Russian people.

 

These two men also shared similar predispositions besides their persistent pursuit of wealth and power. After his Presidential election, Trump shared many unrecorded calls with Putin and was reported to quote his mentor/handler as his authority when contradicting his foreign intelligence analysts. Recently, he even credited Putin as a “genius” when the Russian President termed his unprovoked war against Ukraine a “military exercise of liberation.” Therein Trump could readily recognize his own pension for branding as depicted in his MAGA slogan and his self-characterization as “the greatest President in history.” It should not be surprising that these two men could relate to each other for they sought the same things—power, fame, wealth—conducted their relations on the same transactional basis, and brandished self-fabricated facades to hide their self-serving intents. Is there not an unlikely paradox in the relation of these two Presidents? Their parallel time in office represented two diametrically opposed political systems, one democratic and the other totalitarian. Even though these two men could not be more different in personality, education, or intellect, they had a common self-serving enterprise and ego-branded facade—surely, yet another paradox.

 

Before Putin became President, he developed much of his thievery skills as Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Investments in St. Petersburg. While Chairman, he was not only able to skim money from foreign transactions but to amass a coterie of swindlers/enablers in various skimming and money laundering activities. They would become his lifelong partners in many self-enrichment schemes. From 1991 to 1996, Putin rose to prominence in St. Petersburg while enriching his gang of thieves. Together, they worked with foreign mafia contacts, shared ownership in joint foreign and domestic ventures (like the infamous Ozero Cooperative), and hung onto Putin’s coattails as he rose to ultimate power. ² Most of these men now hold prominent positions in both government and industry. They are part of that uniquely Russian clan of wealthy oligarchs, nearly all of whom have become multi-billionaires. Although Trump lacks the skill and knowledge of Putin, he does see himself as the “genius” benefactor his wealthy friends should acknowledge. After he cut the top tax rate from 35 to 21 percent, he exhorted his Mar-a-Lago guests to thank him for “I just made you a lot richer.” To some extent, he was just replicating what corporate tax lobbyists attempt to do, i.e., assure the rich get richer. When he campaigned for the Presidency, he claimed only he could “clear the swamp” in Washington because he bragged that he knew who the dirty politicians were, for he regularly bought them with his campaign contributions. In fact, he included them in his circle of “my people.” But, as with many of Trump’s assertions, his own words convicted him even while condemning others. He is as much a part of that swamp, as Putin is integral to both the wealth and welfare of his oligarchs. They both lead a band of opportunists, if not outright thieves. Again, these two men could not be more different, and yet so paradoxically alike.

 

During Joe Biden’s campaign for the Presidency, he spoke about the ongoing conflict between democracy and totalitarianism on the world stage. But his words are also relevant to contemporary America. The January 6 insurrection and defilement of the nation’s capital should have awakened all Americans to what Trump had wrought during his four-year term as the nation’s President. As the Nebraska-Kansas Act set the stage for the Civil War, Trump’s refusal to honor the electorate’s decision in 2020 has inspired his followers’ attempts to game future elections. At his urging, they now plan to permanently divide the country while setting the stage for one party rule. And that party, according to the Republican Party’s official platform, would have no other policy agenda than every dictate or whim emanating from Donald Trump. His acolytes would then reenact in future elections the failed 2020 plans revealed by the J/6 Committee. At this very moment, they are attempting to assume positions in Government that would control a/o certify election results. If successful, they would either attempt to reinstall Trump as President or rig future elections in favor of Trump and his chosen candidates. The Republican House Minority Leader has already vowed allegiance to Donald Trump in exchange for his support of a very dark legislative agenda.  If he becomes the Majority leader after the mid-term elections, as he presupposes, he promises to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, cut Social Security and Medicare budgets, codify a ban on all abortions, reduce the 21% tax on wealthy Americans to 15% and make that reduction permanent, eliminate what he terms America’s blank check that supports Ukraine’s war of survival, and repeal much of the Biden agenda passed within his first two years in office, including limits on seniors’ yearly medical expenses, reduction of prescription drug costs and of student tuition debts, and the single largest investment toward mitigating the impact of climate warming in America’s history. He promises to block anticipated Presidential vetoes by simply shutting down the government. But how does his legislative agenda serve the interests of our general welfare? Instead, It rather deepens the divide between the very wealthy and the rest of Americans, furthering the wealth gap, much like what exists in a totalitarian state like Russia.

 

My previous blog highlighted how Putin rigged his initial election to the Presidency (reference, “Is War in Europe Inevitable?”). After the controversial Duma elections and President Yeltsin’s resignation, he became the acting President with total control over Russia’s electoral system. Donald Trump, however, does not currently have the power to reconstitute the results of the last election or rig his own reelection in 2024. But he can select and support surrogates/stooges for elective offices where they could control future elections, to include the casting, counting, and/or certifying of votes. His intent is obvious. If he cannot overturn the last Federal election, he must rig the next one. He has already begun to do so. As Sherlock Holmes would say, “the game is afoot.” But his underlying premise is based upon the same fallacy espoused by his Russian counterpart. Putin promised that only he as President could assure democratic freedoms for his people, much as Trump promised “only I can” make America great again. But those promises belie a fundamental truth: totalitarianism and democracy are diametrically opposed at every level. Either people are allowed to vote their conscience, or not. Either government reflects the will of most of its citizens or just a few, usually a ruling class and/or a dictator. The general welfare of citizens appears quite different in a democratic versus a totalitarian state as a result. “Government of, by, and for the people” cannot and will never exists under either of these men.

 

While Putin can resurrect centuries of Russian imperial or communist totalitarianism, Trump must recall and reinvigorate a less distant past of American white male superiority by virtue of race and gender. Could he take America back before the 2009 women’s pay equity legislation, 1960’s hard won voting and civil rights laws, the 1920’s Amendment granting women’s suffrage, and the 1860’s Amendments abolishing slavery and granting civil rights for all, including Black suffrage? It seems as unlikely that Trump could reintroduce white male supremacy as Putin could reestablish Russian rule over its lost empire. Trump is that repulsive male chauvinist caught on tape during his initial Presidential campaign. And Putin is the very embodiment of the “Russian Bear” caricature poised at Europe’s border anxious to swallow up Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—If NATO would just allow him to do so.  But it is doubtful that his imperialist appetite would be any more satisfied with these conquests than it was with Chechnya or Georgia. In truth, Belorussia, Poland, Hungry, Czechoslovakia and all of Europe would shudder with that hungry Russian Bear on its border (reference, “The Russian Bear”). Ironically, both Trump and Putin relapse into a recidivism of “better” times that they imagine only they can resurrect. While Trump would reverse much of America’s 234 year evolution of its democracy, Putin would re-introduce Russia to a monarchic and aristocratic era not too dissimilar to the Middle Ages. When these men attain positions of power over others, their only intent is to amass more power, fame, and wealth without the least concern for the will or general welfare of their citizens. Moreover, the ego-obsessed brutishness with which these self-deluded strongmen govern are parallel parodies of paranoia.

 

Is it necessary—or even appropriate—for America to recover a former greatness or for Russia to reclaim its empire? The pursuit of a MAGA or imperial myth-shrouded past is to ignore responsibility to build a better future. History’s tragedies only repeat themselves when the lessons they record are ignored. In truth, neither Putin nor Trump care more for the welfare of their citizens than the advancement of their own interests and pursuits. While Trump was reducing staffing at the White House and appointing sycophants wherever he could to enhance his power, Putin had already concentrated his authority by placing his St. Petersburg gang in charge of key Russian industries and government positions. ³ Both men recognized the necessity to surround themselves with as few acolytes as they could control and to make themselves both the key decision-makers and prime controllers of their country’s wealth distribution. But Putin was better positioned to succeed in his quest for absolute power. He was following a path well-worn in the aftermath of a totalitarian system that had nurtured him from the very beginning of his career as a KGB operative. In addition, as deputy mayor of St. Petersburg and chairman of the Committee for Foreign Liaison, he obtained sole foreign purchasing authority. This chairmanship allowed him to organize his crime syndicate of smugglers, money launderers, and foreign mafias as his power base while his official government position allowed him to embezzle City funds, siphon off money from foreign sales, and extort money from a legal gaming industry. Putin’s St. Petersburg associates, some from his previous KGB period, were not only beholden to him, but anxious to follow him into his Presidency. They became his trusted cohorts and the wealthy oligarchs he often appointed to dual positions in charge of both key industries and their regulatory institutions. As President, any who might oppose him faced more than his anger, but an enabled flight out of a six story window. His St. Peterburg associates, however, he protected as fellow collaborators through whom he maintained control over key business sectors and much of Russia’s wealth. Likewise, Trump attempted to use his Presidency to profit himself (as detailed in previous blogs) and “his” billionaires. He was also willing to harm his or their supposed enemies. While Putin could use his FSB to quietly silence his opposition, Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice to punish his supposed enemies like CNN’s Jeff Zucker, and benefit Fox’s Richard Murdoch, his friend, prime supporter, and initially his regular confidant. In like manner, he tried to find a way to help his Florida neighbor from Palm Beach, Nelson Peltz, in his complaint against a common foe, Jeff Bezos of Amazon. Peltz had a $3.5 billion stake in Procter and Gamble, which he felt was threatened by Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods, a major competitor. Of course, Trump was anxious to help since he considered Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post a personal affront to himself. ⁴ Fortunately for America, Trump only appointed a few billionaires to cabinet positions in his government, though his policies could and did benefit many more of them. By comparison, he proved to be just a Putin wannabe or, as I have previously coined, a “Putin’s mini-me.”

 

It might seem that America’s very democratic roots would explain how its abhorrence of past czars or Soviet totalitarianism would naturally extend to Putin’s present day autocracy. But that assumption would be wrong. There were monarchists amongst our pre-revolution colonists. And there have been anarchists who have risen against our federal system of government throughout our history, not just during our Civil War. Texas once sought individual statehood and threatened war against the United States of America. Even the liberal focus of the so-called Locofoco’s transmuted itself many times between 1820-1870 to support potentially contending rights, meshing laissez-faire economics with the individual rights claimed by classical liberalism. Have we Americans ever resolved this conflict between hyper-capitalism and an equitable distribution of wealth in a democratic society (reference “American Exceptionalism Revisited”). Both the “robber barons” and the civil rights movements of women and Blacks claim their heritage from classical liberalism. Within America’s quest for individual freedoms, we can find white supremacists like the Klu Klux Klan from the 1870’s, Hitlerism in the 1930’s, McCarthyism in the 1950’s, Gov. Wallace in the 1960’s, and the Republican Party’s current flirtation with fascism (referenced here in its historical, rather than philosophical contexts). The point of this argument is that devotion to democracy is not divorced from the vagaries of human ambition or of its moral pitfalls. The paradox here is not in democracy, but in human nature.

 

How can men like Trump or Putin rise to occult-like power and demand absolute loyalty of their followers and/or subjects? Perhaps this loyalty is explained by Robert Wright’s diagnosis of a “conformist bias” in our nature (as quoted in “What is American Democracy’s Fate?”). Are we then so tribal by nature that we can ignore their actions—even at the expense of our American democracy or Ukrainian lives?  Both Putin and Trump violate the trust and moral beliefs of the people who willfully support their Don Quixote enterprises. But I know most Americans are not yet under the MAGA spell and would never consciously concede to the overthrow of our 234 year-old democracy. Likewise, I doubt that Russians not bilked by Putin’s propaganda would support his genocidal and unprovoked war upon a nation with which they share a common inheritance.

 

Although Russia and America exist under very different political and economic systems, they both suffer from opportunists who share a common interest in accumulating wealth and power at the expense of the governed. These men—yes, they are always men—will rig elections, surround themselves with their “gang of thieves,” create a “protection racket” to quell their enemies, and justify their ill-got gains as the messianic restorers of an imagined “past golden age.” This latter delusion is the product of their paranoia whereby they see themselves as the “great leader” whom all must acknowledge and follow. The architype they present to their followers is not that of a father, but of a warrior who will lead them into battle and eventual conquest. Neither Trump nor Putin are satisfied with merely winning but in vanquishing their enemies. Trump will destroy free elections, avoid accountability for his lawlessness, and disregard our system of checks and balances to become President forever. Putin will destroy Ukraine and any other independent country he considers an obstacle to his mission of recreating a Russian empire. Neither of these men want to destroy capitalism or their respective governments. Parasites need host victims. Instead, they choose to expand wealth creation, but mainly for themselves and their loyal cronies. And, of course, their egos demand obeisance and supreme command over their respective nations. Ironically, neither man fits the model of a warrior-king: Putin is a control freak, scared of being preempted (reference his quote from the title of my previous blog); and Trump is an occult leader demanding obeisance and undeserved flattery from others. Neither can withstand opposition. Trump will throw a temper tantrum or pen a hateful tweet; Putin will reserve a jail cell for anyone he finds disagreeable or personally offensive. These are men who have attained great power, but who act like ten-year-old brats and schoolyard bullies.

 

Paradoxically, both men seem bent on returning to the early 19^th century, before the American Civil War and the fall of the Russian empire. An historian might conclude that they are both anachronistic in time and place—historically, square pegs misfitted into round holes. And that observation makes the parallelisms noted here the central paradox⁵ of this blog.

 

( . . . A Relevant Footnote for my American Readers:

It’s well past the time for us to turn away from unsupported “facts” and “assumptions” purported by bias news sources, hearsay internet nonsense, and incendiary political speech. Democracy cannot survive without an informed electorate. Check your sources. Challenge unsupported arguments. Research incendiary “facts” and withhold your consent until verified by trusted sources. The information age can be a wondrous expansion of individual awareness and knowledge. But it has also proved to be a bottomless well of misinformation, gossip, and self-serving propaganda. Our democracy depends upon us as informed and committed citizens.)

_____________________________________________________

¹ This quote and the Russian stats mentioned in this paragraph are taken from Thomas Piketty’s “A Time for Socialism,” pp. 178-181.

² These references to Putin’s work in St. Petersburg are described by Karen Dawisha in “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” Chapter 3, “Putin in St. Petersburg 1990-1996,” pp. 104-162. It should be noted that Putin began assembling his gang of miscreants while working for the KGB from 1985 forward. Eventually, he rose to the KGB leadership before becoming Prime Minister and then Acting President in 1999. He was still head of the renamed KGB, the FSB (Federal’ Naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti), when he was finally “elected” to the Presidency.

³ Dawisha, ibid, the references in this paragraph to Putin’s Moscow period are taken from Chapter 4, “Putin in Moscow, 1990-1999,” pp.224-265.

⁴ Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, “The Divider,” pp.54-59.

⁵ According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the etymology of “paradox” is the Greek, para, near, beside, along, and doka, opinion, notion, expectation. But, as anybody who has studied the Greek language knows (?), doka can be used in context to mean false opinion, delusion, or fancy (ref. Langenscheidt’s Greek-English dictionary). Webster does provide a definition closer to Greek usage: “a tenet contrary to received opinion” or “a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.” In ancient Greek, word definitions can subtlety change in context. In the context of this article, “paradox” is the only appropriate word that captures the odd, conflicting parallelism of democracy/kleptocracy, wealth/grift, ideals/delusion, or Trump/Putin. Regarding this last parallelism, I suspect my readers have no need of a Greek dictionary to relate to my phrase “parallel parodies of paranoia.”