&n bsp;  Further to my previous comment, meanwhile there has been no progress in international affairs toward the multipolar world, which Russia claims to desire, as evidenced by the fact that NATO  is still dropping bombs on the heads of the Libyan people with impunity. They are able to start a new war every month if they want to, without anybody being able to do anything to stop them. They could not do this 30 years ago, 40 years ago, or even longer. The world has regressed, not progressed, due primarily to the de-establishment of the USSR. 

   &n bsp;  So Medvedev, like Putin last month, says he does not want "state capitalism" in Russia. Does this mean that they leave the door open for laissez faire capitalism, which is just as infernal a system, if not more so? Judging from the degree to which he stresses privatization of the economy, it appears as though this may well be the case. There are so many vaguearies in this speech that it could mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Typical of speeches given in the framework of bourgeois politics, which Russia is now following the road toward. The last twenty-five years have seen the emergence of a mindless consumer-capitalist economy in Russia, the proponents of which hold that infinite growth is possible and indeed essential, on a planet with finite resources. The people will realize the fundamental truth, in time that, when it comes to economics, if it isn`t Marxist economics, then all it amounts to is that a few fortunate people end up with almost all the money, and the rest end up with hardly anything. Russia is wasting its time in this search for some nebulous economic system that isn`t "state capitalist", or socialist, or Marxist or whatever else.

Let's just call it national socialism and take down the curtains.  It's always been the only socio-polical-econom ic philosophy that keep the money hounds at bay.  Too bad American politics can't follow suit.

Giving freedom on business sectors, it is way to attract some investors to invest in the country.   In contrast, country needs to have some kinds of political stable environments for some investors to invest in the country.
Every political systems has strength and some weakness point.   It is better for having half and half of two political systems to run in the country.    

Mr. Medvedev's supe rciliousness & conceitedness only left me speechless. &nb sp;  

Certainly Russia is moving forward; pluralism is appearing, international multipolarism is strengthening, further institutional development is being asked for, open free markets are being supported and developed …. The list goes on and on. The vision for Russia is clear, and it is also clear that to bring about that vision requires change, and further for that vision to be deemed a success depends on the inherent viability of that vision itself– how it really hangs together in intricate detail. So what about change, well many totally misunderstand stability, or only see stability in its static form. This leads to ‘we must break stability to have change’. But this is only half the story. Stability exists in both a static and dynamic form. Static stability is steady state, it is the stagnation vector, however, dynamic stability is the performance of the system under a desired request for change. Indeed you need stability at all times ESPECIALLY when the system is disturbed, even intentionally, to bring about a new set point. So we must be careful with the half truth, which only benefits speculative vultures, and instead insist on dynamic stability throughout Russia’s ongoing transformation. The vultures are selling the half truth, waiting for another 1990s Pandora, to rob the Russian people. But change is not enough, the vision itself must be clear and viable if we are to have any chance of getting there, or indeed enjoying success, if we get there. So what is that ‘end’, to have a western system of crisis, debt, bankruptcy, austerity and riots, brought about by lack of regulation – is that the cake we are baking for ourselves. Is this the electoral manifesto we are to vote for – pain. suffering and poverty – didn’t we vote for that before in the 1990s. I am not arguing against the vision, but I am arguing that there is another half truth that regulation is bad, and that this half truth is potentially the most destructive of all to us. Half truths are not enough!

Another neo-liberal? (Hopefully only in words and not deeds). Russia wants to be as bankrupt as the USA? In a crisis as Greece? If so go for it, privatize, privatize and privatize, 99% of the world for the 1% rich.

Hey Meddie,
You could have fooled me, how many companies is the government involved in?
Then what happens if success is attained? Hahahahaha prison ?