WSJ on Yeltsin

Yeltsin was a contradictory figure: A man of boundless energy and determination, his fight against the Soviet system was motivated by a personal desire for revenge but also by a vision of a better life. At the same time, however, he shared the core assumption of the communist worldview--that the individual has no value compared to the goals of the state. It was this that undercut the democracy he hoped to build and prepared the way for the KGB-FSB government that exists in Russia today.

In the aftermath of Yeltsin's death, there will be many, particularly in the U.S., who try to draw a distinction between democracy under Yeltsin and authoritarianism under Mr. Putin. This distinction is false. Democracy implies a rule of law that did not exist under Yeltsin. At the same time, Mr. Putin was Yeltsin's handpicked successor. He never would have become president were it not for the criminality of the Yeltsin years, and the apartment bombings that led to the Second Chechen War.

The emancipation of Russia and its descent back into authoritarianism are both part of Yeltsin's legacy. Fate put him at the head of a movement that did great good--but he proved incapable of guaranteeing his country a better future. In the end, his life is a sober illustration of the necessity of uprooting the communist inheritance in Russia, and of how deep that legacy runs.

My emphasis.

I wonder if he, like Putin, had Atlas Shrugged on his shelf, too. And I wonder who the western economic advisors were who insisted that government assets be handed over to anyone without concern for establishing just laws to rule rights of property. Or an appropriate system for ensuring that all the owners of Soviet capital had their fair share. I don't think any of them could be accused of taking Objectivism or Austrian Economics too seriously.

IMF and World Bank guys, no doubt - a lot of Keynes, a little Friedman.