1. At the beginning of the process in 1990s all property was privatized; big criminals (tycoons) got ownership of factories, while ordinary people - of apartment units, houses, pieces of land. Agricultural activities stopped as a result of rural lands private ownership; industrial production came to a halt as well. Oil based model was adopted where all economic activities are finances by oil money; complete dependence on food imports. This led to overdevelopment of 2 biggest cities S-Petersburg and Moscow (where financial flows are and where most of population had to relocate, making them extremely polluted and overcrowded) and desolation of all other land; all towns being dependent on them. Oligarchy minority control most of the wealth and have most of political power, they assign or withdraw the president (in Russia one of them) A small gov-t run public sector exists, although very ineffective. Making changes such as replacing the president or gov-t doesnt make sense as the owning class are in firm control and would never allow to happen anything threatening their interests. Further changes of government would be just replacement of one group of criminals by another indefinitely. What went wrong in Russia's adoption of capitalism, what should have been done differently, what can be done today? If nothing can be done wouldnt the country be better off remaining communist? 2. In the neighboring Ukraine the situation was the same until recently (the only difference being that some people were involved in subsistence agriculture in rural areas, so less prone to hunger). Will getting rid of russian control and attempts for closer cooperation with EU improve economic performance? So far the devaluation of national currency was ongoing. 3. It seems economical success of US and Europe cant be attributed to the use of one or another economic system or type of government; rather it is the result of historical world wealth accumulation and ensuing development; so even if tomorrow the worst communist dictatorship is implemented there they wouldnt feel any difference. In EU there are socialist economies very similar to that of soviet communist, in US its welfare capitalism, again very little relation to real capitalism; moreover if pure capitalism doesnt exist or practiced anywhere, why to talk about it in the first place? So what is the real key to success of western economies? 4. Capitalism is a system based upon the premise to profit and satisfy the greed of the owning class that is supposed somehow to bring benefits to the public, although they are only a byproduct and of peripheral nature. In every society there are extremist individuals in terms of how much they want to own compared to others. It seems that capitalism was invented by them to make theft legitimate. Also for it to work many factors need to coincide, otherwise its just coexistence of capital and labour, giving no opportunities for growth or development. How can it work and be good to the society in general? 5. I think my questions may seem naive, but why so many people give their lives for this kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) (such as in war in Ukraine), dont they understand that?
