[Udik]

Sure. You said:

- if they had liberalized both the economy and the social laws, economy would have grown even more.

And I pointed out (sarcastically, I admit) that the transition to freedom and market economy didn't work out very well in the other example of communist superpower. It might not have anything to do with the transition, per se; it might just be that Russia was culturally unprepared for it and it managed it very badly. But I find easy to believe that a sudden switch from a single party system and an entirely planned economy, to free market and democracy, is in itself extremely risky.

China has been doing great in the years since 1989; Russia, that has tried to follow the path of democracy and market (of course, with very mediocre results), has not.

[Findeton]

I didn't choose Russia as an example of economic and social freedom, you did. Russia is not high on the scale of social and economic freedom. In fact Russia has never ever been a democracy in its whole history. You want a better example? Chile.

[Udik]

You're reading in my comment things I didn't actually say. Specifically, I didn't choose Russia as an example of economic or social freedom. I instead argued that Russia tried to go that way, and it didn't end well. And of course, if Russia were an actual example of social and economic freedom, that would go against my whole argument.

[0815test]

They never even tried, though. They may have claimed at some point that they'd do it, but that's a very different matter - they went the "government cronyism" way, and very explicitly so. Again, just compare what Eastern Europe has been achieving, and it's no comparison - even after you account for the fact that Russia did have to face quite a bit of enduring hostility and distrust from Western institutions.