Essay on The Rise of the Oligarchs in Post Soviet Russia

Russia’s economy is very complex and also very terrible at the same time. Many other economy’s are also like this but Russia’s is a very interesting thing to learn about. Russia’s economy has many things wrong with it that in the long run could probably affected it in a negative way. But it also has many positive things about it.The negatives and the positives are, in my opinion, are equal in Russia economy.

Amid Russian Revolution years there is the chance to watch the Russian economy experiencing a few basic moves, including a portion of the most exceedingly bad things that can happen to a nation. There was war and civil war. The economy endured monetary breaking down, separation, and starvation. There was a breakdown of state limit: government prohibited Vodka.

A book review of Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia integrating Olsonian and Tillyian views of statehood

On 24-26 October, the Bolshevik Party seized power from Kerensky’s Provisional Government. This was achieved with surprising ease. Retaining their newly acquired power, however, was to prove difficult. Nonetheless, the Bolsheviks proved successful in consolidating their power from 1917-1924, achieving this through a combination of pragmatic reforms and ruthless terror. This ultimately led the Bolsheviks far from their original goals and ideologies, and by 1924, the Soviet Union was a highly centralised one-party state.

The many long-term internal causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union centralized around weaknesses in their economy. They had an inflexible central planning system, the inability to modernize, and the inefficiency in their agriculture production. Sometime around the 1970's the computer and automation revolution had emerged. This revolution took over the West, but practically missed the Soviet Union, except in the military sector (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) Gorbachev's goal in economic restructuring was to create a separation between the economic and the political. The major changes began with the legalization of private farming and business co-operatives, and the allowing of foreign company ownership over Soviet enterprises (Baylis &Smith, 2001) All of Gorbachev's ideas on economic restructuring backfired on him since the price levels were inconsistent, and a sense of social confusion about the future of their state was created.

The democratization, economic liberalization, and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union is commonly attributed to Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost reforms during the period of 1985-1991. This purpose of these reforms is still a trenchant question as the countries of the old Soviet Union, particular Russia, are being pressured to further liberalize their economies.

The Soviet Union, which was once a world superpower in the 19th century saw itself in chaos going into the 20th century. These chaoses were marked by the new ideas brought in by the new leaders who had emerged eventually into power. Almost every aspect of the Soviet Union was crumbling at this period both politically and socially, as well as the economy. There were underlying reasons for the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eventually Eastern Europe. The economy is the most significant aspect of every government. The soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1. fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government

Oligarchy as it is known in Aristotle’s politics; is a government run by a small group of people, ‘elites’. However, the oligarchy which this essay addresses is currently referred to in Russia as “a very wealthy and politically well-connected businessman...one who is the main owner of a conglomerate of enterprises and has close ties with the president” (Aslund and Dabrowski, 2007; 144). In the 1990s Russia’s economic reforms are said to have created the rise of a small group of oligarchs who gained an overwhelming amount of power and control. By 1997, this small group of previously unknown businessmen and bankers, often with gangster ties, had acquired control of many of the key parts of the Russian economy. Why did they emerge? It is argued by David Satter that three processes facilitated the emergence of the oligarchs. The first was hyperinflation and the social, economic and political consequences. The second was the process of privatisation, and finally the third was criminalisation (Satter, 2003). However, were these powerful oligarchs just a phase during the transition from Soviet to Post-Soviet Russia? Even with Putin’s efforts and declaration to distance the oligarchs from politics and power, and start a war against them exemplified by the Khodorkovsky affair, are oligarchs still significantly powerful in contemporary Russia? What is the role they play in Russia? It seems that the power of those original oligarchs of the 1990s has decreased or been concealed in

In the course of Russian History, there is a long running debate over whether Russia tends towards autocracy or if it is merely the illusion of autocracy. In its place, some have proposed that an oligarchy ruled by consensus. The relationship between the Tsar and the Boyars is the subject of much debate and varied based on the time in history and the personality of the Tsar. However, in general, the trend is towards autocracy. There are a few reasons for this.

Organized crime quickly began eating away at the Soviet Machine and during the regime of Leonid Brezhnev in the 60's and 70's corruption became a way of life within the Soviet elite. The result was a thriving black market. Shakedowns that were once conducted in the shadows were now going on in broad daylight. By the 1970's, small illegal businesses sprang

In Peter J. Boettke’s article Why Perestroika Failed, he addressed six propositions that potentially contributed to the collapse of Perestroika. Of the six propositions Boettke addressed, the first two propositions support the idea that the illusion created in regards to Russia’s economy, and overall Russian society, were direct causes for the failure of the reform. The first proposition that “Soviet economic strength was an illusion” looks to give an explanation to Russia’s seemingly sound economy (Boettke 3). The Soviet Union depicted its economy as an economy with the ability to sustain itself alongside other Western societies, in particular, America. When Ronald Raegan’s military build-up during that time pressured the Soviet Union to bolster its military capabilities, the already suffering economy was burdened even more. Majority of its failure due to the lack of effective structure, the Soviet economy was predicted to fail well before the added strain of military advancement. The structure was flawed, allowing few to manipulate the system for their own gain and leaving the rest in a state of discontent, although everyone generally suffered. Despite the Soviet Union’s inability to keep up economically, the country was still able to produce “… newly built shopping centers and restaurants catering to the ‘new Russians’ and expatriates [that]

Many officials at the top of the Russian political ladder do not seem to think the economy in Russia is stable enough to last a moderate amount of time. The main reason many people think the Russian economy is in

This expansion was aided by perestroika’s opening up of market opportunities. In Leningrad, as much as 90% of the cooperatives produced by the liberal policies of perestroika were deeply involved with organized crime (Anderson, 1995, 352). The extensiveness of organized crime in the USSR is quite apparent when one examines such numbers, but the more important question is what was inherent in the USSR that facilitated such crime and how this later affected organized crime in the Russian Federation.

After 1991, Russia decided to make the move from communism to capitalism. This was projected to bring prosperity in Russia, the likes of which had never been seen. This move by President Boris Yeltsin meant that he renounced his affiliation

For some, the privatization of Russian industry has been one of the great success stories of Russia's painful economic transition: quick, firm and radical action was taken to shift the great bulk of Russian industry out of state hands, thereby laying the basis for a radical restructuring of enterprises and improvements in their performance. Others see privatization as a best a failure, at worst a catastrophe. Not surprisingly those opposed to the market and economic reform as a whole share this view. But many commentators who see themselves as supporters of reform find plenty in Russian privatization to criticize: the process led to the transfer of ownership to inappropriate people and as a consequence no beneficial restructuring of