Thomas Schueckler

First Draft
Every man has his price. Money is like an addictive drug there is always a lust for
more, and this lust is capable of seriously impairing ones judgment and action. Bribery can be
found at any and all levels of human interaction, from bribing a referee to make calls in ones
favor to bribing a Supreme Court Justice to defy the law. When money exerts such a powerful
influence on the hearts of men, it seems apparent the political scene is unbalanced because the
wealthy can tip the scales in their direction and enjoy much greater political power than those
who are less privileged. How can democracy exist in a country where the majority of wealth lies
in the hands of a few?
First, let us look at an example of how wealth can undermine the political force of the
less privileged. When the Soviet Union had dissolved in 1991, the affiliated republics were
beginning to experiment with more Western approaches at political freedom, especially
economic freedom. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of the Western
competitors during the Cold War further contributed to this Westernization by promulgating
capitalistic ideals in the independent Eastern republic. Additionally, many of the economic
regulations imposed by the U.S.S.R. were lifted or unenforced after the decentralization of the
Eastern governments. As such, the former-Soviet republics quickly adopted a free market system
that favored entrepreneurship. However, most of the former-Soviet citizens were unfamiliar with
the new economic system and were vulnerable to exploitation. Competitive marketplaces became
a massacre as experienced businessmen swallowed up less successful businesses. Many of the
evils of capitalism as pronounced by Marx actually became manifest. Russia in particular
became quasi-aristocratic as the wealthy swallowed up all of the countrys assets, creating
massive industrial monopolies. The exploitative nature of the system caused living conditions to

Thomas Schueckler
become even worse than they had been during the Soviet Union. The people cried to the
government for assistance, and the government readily responded by seizing those corporations
and assets for itself. The federal government of Russia then had control over massive
corporations, such as the oil giant Gazprom.
Wealth also became a deterrent to democracy in the satellite Soviet republics. During the
various revolution that occurred in these nations, the oligarchic establishment that followed the
dissolution of the Soviet Union became increasingly unpopular. Much of the populace cried out
for democratic elections in order to improve the quality of life. The new peoples movement was
heavily supported by Western nations, particularly the U.S., that wanted to promote democracy
in Eastern Europe so as to stem the reemergence of communism. Election dates were
approaching, and it was apparent that Western-sympathetic leaders were going to be elected,
largely due to the financial support of Western pro-democratic entities. However, Russia was not
inclined to the democratic revolutions, so it stopped pumping natural gas to these nations and the
economies and infrastructures of these nations began to collapse. These nations then had to
reform their governments in such a way that suited Russian interests. Here lies what seems to
be the ultimate example of financial assets contributing to the suppression of democracy.
So it is very apparent that concentrated wealth can neutralize democracy. However, what
is a tangible solution? Oftentimes American liberals think that the best solution is to raise taxes
on the wealthy. However, that only further concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. Money is
being taken from large corporations, and the common perception is that it then goes to the
people, though people often forget that the money is acquired by the federal government. The
money is then concentrated in the hands of the federal government. This should be as alarming if
not more alarming than having that same money concentrated in the hands of corporations.

Thomas Schueckler
Instead of that money being used to bring more revenue to the nation, that money is often used
for political purposes, as is clearly evidenced by increased political advertisements. Russia
provides the greatest example of this, as the corporations are absorbed by the government but
there is still significant suppression of democracy.
How can financial disparity be eliminated for democracy to be achieved? The answer lies
not in the societal or economic structure of the nation. Those who are more capable or more
exploitative will always find ways to accumulate wealth and prevent it from being taken from
them. This is true of both corporations and governments. They are both motivated by selfinterest. Concentrated wealth is only used for political manipulation if the possessor of the
wealth wants to. Any system of economics or government is vulnerable to corruption it just
depends who is in power and what they do with that power. The key to eliminating political
exploitation is not by changing societal structures, but by shifting human thought away from
self-interest and ultimately in the greater good of man.