The relationship between wealth and power can shape societies in profound ways, often leading to stark contrasts between the rich and the poor. Let’s explore a thought-provoking comparison between two seemingly different eras: post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s and contemporary America. This reflection draws attention to underlying societal issues that remain relevant today.
Let’s start with a little quiz: if one reads the following excerpts from an Encyclopedia Britannica entry, is it discussing the US today or Russia in the 90s?
This union of wealth and authority that characterized them as oligarchs resembled the sugar barons, coffee planters, and bankers of past Latin America.
…audacious individuals, emerging from outside established power networks, unburdened by traditional ideologies, seizing unique opportunities…
Immense disparities in pricing, property ownership, and trade could be leveraged for extraordinary gains.
…wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select few…
Dishonesty, theft, and deceit permeated everyday business; intimidation, savagery, and coercion were common practices. The oligarchs thrived in an environment devoid of legal limitations or a moral compass, yet they emerged as billionaires.
They were acutely aware of their unpopularity among the populace, who faced tremendous social upheaval…[many were impoverished], while others struggled to cope with the rapid pace of transformation. They scrutinized the tycoons in their opulent limousines, extravagant yachts, lavish getaways, and offshore bank accounts.
Answer: it is Russia. Yet the parallels with the US today are undeniable.
For numerous working-class communities in the US, life increasingly resembles the tumultuous decade following the USSR’s collapse, known as the “wild 90s.” These years were marked by economic ruin, soaring rates of despair, deteriorating real wages, and declining life expectancy, with state support evaporating. Many Russians resorted to desperate measures, including “commercial sex” or engaging in the black market transplant economy.
American capitalists criticized, attributing such outcomes to communism. Fast forward to 2026, and Americans are turning to ‘buy now, pay later’ loans for essentials like rent and utilities. Social media moguls facilitate the exploitation of children, and one can bet on just about anything, while the wealthiest evade legal accountability.
When Anne Case and Angus Deaton updated their research on “deaths of despair” in 2023, it revealed that US social policies only exacerbated the lifespan gap between poor and affluent Americans. They used college graduation rates as a proxy for class, as those with a BA earn approximately 60 percent more.
Here is a glimpse of Russia in the 1990s:
Yves once compared the Trump administration’s DOGE bust to the shock therapy imposed on Russia in the 90s—an eerily accurate observation. Coincidentally, both scenarios stem from the actions of the US’s “best and brightest” draining resources from any viable entity.
As Russia privatized its state assets in various industries and natural resources, the US also continues to dismantle what remains of a once-vibrant secular state.
Consequently, we observe that unelected wealthy individuals are increasingly dictating the operations that affect daily life. This encompasses media, healthcare, education, natural resources, transportation, security and prisons, surveillance, finance, space travel, utility services, waste management, defense, and more.
The DOGE Boy’s administration has exacerbated the crisis in housing and food aid while driving up costs through imperial conflicts. Additionally, the ongoing push to outsource government functions to AI accelerates the transfer of wealth upwards, leaving millions struggling to survive.
While Russia underwent its shock therapy and the rise of oligarchs within a brief period, this process in the US has spanned decades, reaching new extremes under Trump 2.0. Nathan Meyers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Labor Center states:
The government’s pivot away from direct action primarily arises from entrenched austerity policies—an approach focused on “starving the beast” of government—alongside a backlash against the New Deal’s expansion of federal economic involvement. The 1971 “Powell Memo,” crafted by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, galvanized business leaders to augment private sector power in public policy. This fueled the growth of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which later formulated the Project 2025 privatization agenda.
As government-provided production shrank, government contracting expanded, promising savings and efficiency. These contracting decisions often fall to local administrators managing budgets under fiscal stress and pressure from interest groups, including businesses and public sector unions.
However, studies suggest that contracting frequently fails to curtail costs, risking monopolies, reducing accountability and public input, and sometimes locking governments into rigid contracts.
As always, Trump serves as a catalyst for existing trends, not a standalone aberration.
Thus, we are currently witnessing the rapid disintegration of the American secular state, where the government’s capacity to provide positive outcomes for its citizens is nearly non-existent, while irresponsible behavior from private entities skyrockets. Ganesh Sitaraman, director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation, who has advised Senator Elizabeth Warren, writes in The Secular Decline of the American State:
The Trump administration’s assault on the administrative state has gained much attention. However, interpreting its weakening during either term as unique or cyclical—only occurring in Republican administrations—is misguided. We are amidst a period of sustained decline of the American state, now exacerbated in the second Trump term. This article outlines fifteen dynamics in American politics, law, policy, and society that gravitate toward secular decline. Some have been in play for decades, contributing to the already comparatively frail American state. Others are emergent or systemic features of this decline. The consequences are significant: a rise in consumer harms, increased economic instability, decreased innovation, weakened resilience in crises, erosion of global power, and social fracturing.
A Few Differences and a Potential Preview
As NC commenter ISL points out, the breakdown of the state in the US is likely to result in much graver consequences than those faced during Russia’s dark era of the 90s:
I foresee a concerning divergence from the Soviet experience (note that life in the US grows increasingly chaotic—try securing insurance approval for a medical procedure). The US has largely dismantled its safety net, forcing individuals to seek immediate employment or risk homelessness, all while holding a job is exceedingly difficult if one is already living in a car (which is becoming illegal) or under a bridge.
Bus drivers in Russia kept their routes operating despite unpaid wages, thanks to state-provided housing and services, holding out hope for future payment. In the US, however, the bus would remain stationary, hindering access for individuals who still receive compensation. The same scenario persists across much of America, where even medical practitioners may ignore their ethical commitments to maximize profits for healthcare corporations.
Thus, I anticipate that the fall will be much more challenging, and fragmentation (independence of kleptocratic former states) may be far worse, likely leading to internal conflicts for a populace accustomed to warfare throughout much of its two-and-a-half-century history.
Another notable difference between Russia’s wild 90s and the US today is that violent crime rates are at historic lows in the US, while they surged in Russia during the shock therapy era.
One must consider, however, that traditional crime statistics may not provide a complete picture. They often fail to capture the pervasive phenomenon known as social murder.
Marissa Jackson Sow, a law professor at the University of Richmond, defines social murder as “the systematic elimination of demographics through atrocious events for which the State bears indirect or partial responsibility, through calculated negligence instead of direct intent.”
She argues that “social murder is a necessary outcome of market capitalism,” referencing examples like the aftermath of natural disasters, the situation at the Twin Parks North West apartment complex in the Bronx, and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic:
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed governmental policies that systematically accepted the sacrifice of certain lives for the sake of economic gain.
If such factors were accounted for in violent crime statistics, the portrayal would drastically shift. This type of violence might help elucidate why America’s affluent are growing increasingly anxious about potential violence targeting them. According to Fortune:
Companies are investing in enhanced home security, personal security, and cybersecurity measures for CEOs and high-profile executives. A survey conducted by Goldman Sachs Ayco, the financial planning and wealth management arm of the bank, revealed that the most common security measures include having at least one bodyguard accompany executives during business travel or public engagements with controversial figures in attendance, as well as having an armed chauffeur for transit. While private jet travel has long been standard for prominent CEOs, companies are now also favoring first-class air travel for executive cohorts, as confirmed by the survey of compensation experts from 291 public and private enterprises.
Several factors could explain this heightened security:
- They may be spooked by high-profile incidents, including the killing of UnitedHealth’s CEO by Luigi Mangione, dubbed ‘California’s Mangione,’ who burned down a warehouse, and the 2024 shooting in Midtown Manhattan that resulted in the deaths of two security guards and two executives from Blackstone and Rudin Management.
- They might possess a subconscious recognition of the negative impact they impose—or, at least, are being cautioned about it. An unstable state filled with economically desperate individuals does not inspire peaceful coexistence.
- They might foresee worsening conditions ahead. As AI and law enforcement increasingly intersect due to growing economic greed, it’s clear that circumstances will not improve for the less affluent.
- Or it could simply be overblown panic with security advisors amplifying threat levels as they tend to do, encouraging wealthy individuals and Fortune 500 companies to invest in private security.
Earlier this year, the New Jersey Regional Operations and Intelligence Center (NJ ROIC), a domestic intelligence “fusion center,” warned that American oligarchs may be under increasing peril. In a report aimed at “executive protection professionals,” the NJ ROIC highlighted:
Public dialogue increasingly blames challenges facing the middle and lower classes on the actions and influence of wealthy corporate executives. A September 2025 survey by Allied Universal revealed a marked rise in threats against corporate executives, with 66% of U.S. security heads acknowledging an increase in threats towards company leaders.
Sectors such as technology, defense, consumer goods, energy, and pharmaceuticals are witnessing the most significant uptick in threats of violence.
All four of these factors likely contribute to the elite’s heightened sense of vulnerability. One might wonder if another aspect will soon emerge. As American elites operate largely above the law, face rampant corruption and bribery, invest in privatized security, and see established institutions eroded, they could be laying the groundwork for further parallels with post-Soviet Russia.
In Russia during that time, much of the violence stemmed from intra-elite conflicts, as organized crime and business factions battled for territory and resources, as highlighted in a study by Jakub Lonsky.
He categorizes the elite as notable entrepreneurs, executives of state-owned and private enterprises, members of organized crime groups, law enforcement and military officials, judges, attorneys, politicians, union leaders, and other public figures, including activists, journalists, and clergy. For further insight, more here:
Heterogeneity analyses reveal that the increase in elite violence was indiscriminate, impacting local criminal figures, entrepreneurs, state enterprise managers, law enforcement officials, judges, as well as politicians… The mob wars were marked by pervasive business violence, with many entrepreneurs hiring contract killers to eliminate competitors.
After Gorbachev initiated economic reforms in 1987, crime rates began to climb, a trend that accelerated with the mass privatization of the early 1990s. The total reported crime rate surged by 131% between 1987 and 1993, leveling off in the latter half of the decade. The most significant increases involved theft (up 324%), robbery (up 492%), and violent robbery (up 592%). Rates of homicide and serious bodily harm both peaked in 1994, with overall rises of 246% and 229% respectively from 1987 to 1994. This surge in violence during that time can largely be attributed to the infamous Great Mob War, which erupted in April 1993, pitting vory-v-zakone against Chechen gangsters (with many vory siding with the Chechens). What began in Moscow quickly spread nationwide, with virtually every organized crime group in Russia aligning with one faction or the other. Figure 2 illustrates the aggregate trend in elite violence during this era. The conflict reached its zenith in 1996 but persisted throughout the rest of the decade. A notable characteristic of the mob wars was the prevalence of business violence, with entrepreneurs frequently resorting to contract killers to eliminate competition.
The American elite may come to regret their embrace of the US as a mafia state.
