An Analysis of 30 Years of Capitalist Transformation in Ukraine

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has once again made Ukraine the focus of international attention. More than 30 years ago, at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Russia declared themselves independent sovereign states. After independence, Ukraine immediately abandoned socialism and embarked on the process of capitalist transformation. At that time, taking the capitalist road was almost the collective choice of the newly independent countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In the perception of the elites and the masses of those countries at the time, systemic transformation and transition would immediately turn the country into a developed nation as "wealthy," "civilized," "democratic," and "free" as the United States and the West. On December 1, 1991, in the nationwide referendum held to confirm the Declaration of Independence adopted on August 24, as many as 93% of voters voted in favor of independence. More than 30 years have passed in the blink of an eye, and Ukraine has not become a developed country that is "wealthy," "civilized," "democratic," and "free." In the economic sphere, Ukraine's gross national product has never recovered to the level on the eve of independence in 1991. According to the 2021 per capita GDP ranking released by the International Monetary Fund, Ukraine has become the poorest country in Europe. In the political sphere, Ukraine has experienced three color revolutions [1]1 "Color revolutions" refers to a series of protest movements and regime changes in post-Soviet states, often characterized by a specific color or symbol, and widely seen as supported by Western powers to install pro-Western governments.; the result of continuously "turning westward" and "turning rightward" is that state power has been seized by politicians and oligarchs manipulated by the United States and the West, while the true public opinion of Ukraine has been ignored. In the social sphere, the gap of social polarization in Ukraine has been continuously widening: on the one hand, the 50 richest families control approximately 85% of Ukraine's GNP; on the other hand, the lives of the Ukrainian people have long failed to improve, and the national debt has been constantly increasing. In just over 30 years, Ukraine has gone from a European industrial power to the poorest country in Europe. "Taking history as a mirror, one can know the rise and fall" [2]2 "Taking history as a mirror, one can know the rise and fall" is a classical Chinese saying from the *Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government* (Zizhi Tongjian), compiled by Sima Guang of the Song Dynasty, emphasizing the value of historical study for understanding the cycles of political success and failure.; analyzing the changes and results of Ukraine's more than 30 years of capitalist transformation can provide useful insights for basing oneself on one's own national conditions and adhering to an independent path of development.

I. Dependent Capitalism Cannot Bring Economic Development to Ukraine

In the more than 30 years of taking the capitalist road, the key words for Ukraine's economy have been "poverty, deindustrialization, and debt." Ukraine's "economic structure has shifted from machinery manufacturing to agricultural production," and "economic growth stagnation and recession are the norm." What caused the serious disconnect between Ukraine's ideals of seeking economic development and reality? What are the deep-seated reasons for this situation in Ukraine's economy? This is the answer we seek in studying the changes and results of Ukraine's more than 30 years of transition. Lenin once pointed out: "When examining any social phenomenon in its process of development, one will always find in that phenomenon traces of the past, the foundations of the present, and the germs of the future." [3]3 This is a paraphrase of Lenin's methodological principle from works such as *What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats* (1894), emphasizing the dialectical analysis of social phenomena.

Ukraine's switch to the capitalist road caused it to lose its status as an economic "top student" from the Soviet period. At the beginning of Ukraine's independence, among the CIS countries, its comprehensive national power was second only to Russia. However, after more than 30 years on the capitalist road, the hospitable and generous Ukraine, once the "breadbasket of the Soviet Union" and a top-ten advanced country in Europe during the Soviet era, has become a "Third World" country divided for various reasons. Through indicators such as the level of economic development, national wealth status, and population growth index, we can find that Ukraine's systemic transformation and transition embarked on the path of "peripheral capitalism" as argued by American scholar Immanuel Wallerstein in *The Modern World-System*, that is, the path of "dependent capitalism." Taking the path of "dependent capitalism," its economic policies are destined not to be based on the interests of the country and the nation, and thus it also predetermined that Ukraine would not choose an independent path of economic development.

In the more than 30 years of Ukraine's capitalist transformation, economic development has shown no results. Ukrainian sociologist A. A. Belenok [4]4 A. A. Belenok (А.А. Бєлєнок) is a Ukrainian sociologist and political commentator known for his critical analysis of post-Soviet capitalist transformation in Ukraine. believes that "it is precisely the restoration of capitalism that has destroyed the national economy. The harm caused by the restoration of capitalism to tens of millions of Ukrainian people, its roots and consequences, are clearly visible." This is because "the restoration of capitalism in Ukraine has led to the country's main wealth falling into the hands of a small number of upstarts, with the working people subject to these people. A minority has illegally monopolized the new opportunities provided by the market, while the vast majority have been marginalized. The well-being of the majority has never reached the level of the Soviet period." It can be seen that "the primary and foremost cause of Ukraine's economic recession is the shock therapy, predatory voucher privatization, and large-scale impoverishment brought about by the emerging capitalism after 1991."

Ukraine's economic development data confirms the view of A. A. Belenok. Since independence, Ukraine's gross national product has never recovered to its 1991 level. Through Table 1, we can see the changes in Ukraine's GNP from 1991 to 2020. From 1991 to 1993, Ukraine's GNP declined at an annual rate of about 10%. From 1994 to 2003, Ukraine's GNP basically hovered at around 50% of the 1990 level. From 2004 to 2020, the highest year for Ukraine's GNP was only 74.2% of the 1990 level.

After more than 30 years of capitalist transformation, Ukraine's national wealth has been continuously shrinking, the people's lives are in hardship, and the gap of wealth polarization has been continuously widening. Ukraine is the largest country in Europe by area and population after Russia, and has now become the poorest country on the European continent. In 2020, Ukraine's GNP was $142 billion, and its per capita GNP was $3,400. Although successive Ukrainian governments have continuously promised the people that by introducing Western social systems, the Ukrainian people can live a wealthy life like the people of Western developed countries, and "will live like Europeans," this promise has drifted further and further away from the lives of the Ukrainian people. A study conducted by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine in August 2020 showed that 65.3% of Ukrainians considered themselves poor, and 33.6% could not determine whether they were poor or middle class. According to data from the United Nations Development Programme, only 1.1% of Ukrainians considered themselves middle class. In 2020, 60% of Ukrainians lived below the poverty line; before the "Euromaidan events" (the Ukrainian "color revolution" from November 2013 to February 2014), only 20% of Ukrainians lived below the poverty line. The poverty rate among Ukraine's working population was 42.4%, meaning almost one in every two workers could not provide a decent life for themselves and their families. At the same time, the total wealth of Ukraine's 100 richest citizens increased by 42%, reaching $44.5 billion. In 2013, the family wealth of the 50 richest families accounted for approximately 85% of Ukraine's GNP.

Over the more than 30 years of capitalist transformation, Ukraine’s population has shown a continuous trend of decline. Ukraine’s total population has shrunk from 52 million during the period of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1991 to less than 34 million in 2021. According to estimates by Ukrainian scholar M.V. Kostynsky, “during the peaceful development years from 1991 to 2014, Ukraine’s population decreased by 10 million people (during the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic period, over the same length of time, Ukraine’s population increased by 10 million people).” There are two reasons. First, poverty, deteriorating medical conditions, and uncertainty about the future have led to a shortened life expectancy for the Ukrainian people. “One in every ten Ukrainians does not live past 35, and one in every two Ukrainians does not live past 60. In 2020, the number of deaths significantly exceeded the number of births; the number of births was 293,457, and the number of deaths was 616,835, with births being only half of deaths.” Second, emigration abroad has caused population losses for Ukraine. Unable to support themselves and their families, and unable to realize their life values in their homeland, many Ukrainians go abroad to seek employment. “Among Ukraine’s 15 million economically active people, 8 million are employed abroad. 80% of young people approve of emigration. In fact, the elderly also receive no support from the state, and their living standards are all below the minimum subsistence level. 77% of retirees receive a monthly income lower than the amount needed to maintain the minimum subsistence standard.”

Since independence, accompanied by population decline and the outflow of labor resources, Ukraine has lost opportunities for development. Independent Ukraine inherited a large amount of resources from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and obtained extremely favorable starting conditions, but it did not make good use of them. Ukraine did not establish a developed market economy; economic development was weak, human potential could not be realized, and the people’s living standards were low. Even Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal admitted: “Due to constantly changing directions of unfinished reforms, a lack of a long-term economic development strategy, corruption, and low management efficiency, all Ukrainian citizens lost 1 trillion US dollars of gross national product.” This is why unbiased analysts have to acknowledge that “Ukraine failed to preserve the image and potential it had when entering the post-Soviet era in the 1990s, and failed to become a successful post-Soviet modernized state.”

II. Three “Color Revolutions” Propelled Ukraine’s Continuous “Turn to the Right”

From independence to the present, Ukraine has experienced three “color revolutions.” This propelled Ukraine’s continuous “turn to the right,” manifested politically in following the United States and the West as the absolute authority. The reason it is said that Ukraine experienced three “color revolutions” is that Ukraine’s three regime changes all conformed to the “color revolution” script designed by the United States, were all advanced according to this script, and achieved the results the United States wanted; this has been confirmed by relevant declassified US archives.

1. The “Velvet Revolution” Boosted the Drastic Changes in Eastern Europe and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union

Ukraine’s independence was a consequence of the “color revolutions” promoted by the US Central Intelligence Agency (hereinafter “CIA”) in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Before events developed to the point of the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States had already invested large sums of money through various means to carry out ideological infiltration in the region. The drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union are another classic case of the US CIA successfully using “color revolutions” to suppress communist ideology.

Today, the concept of “color revolutions,” the methods of operation, and the anticipated consequences are no longer unfamiliar to various sectors of society. From politicians to scholars, and even ordinary people, all know a little about “color revolutions.” However, at the time of the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, “color revolutions” were still shrouded in a mysterious veil. Even earlier, “color revolutions” were even less well-known. This is also the reason the United States could skillfully use “color revolutions” as a “trump card of soft power” to successfully suppress socialist and communist ideology.

The United States is the originator of plotting “color revolutions.” In 2022, it had been 74 years since the US CIA launched its first “color revolution.” From its inception, the “color revolution” was used to suppress communist parties and communist ideology. According to declassified US archives, as early as 1948, the CIA first applied the “color revolution” in the Italian general election. By conducting inflammatory propaganda, funding favored candidates, and meticulously planning grassroots movements, it successfully caused the Italian Communist Party to lose the election. On the surface, influence was exerted by the US State Department, the US Agency for International Development, and US-funded non-governmental organizations; covertly, the CIA accomplished the same things. This was the first time the United States, under the banner of “democracy and freedom,” used “color revolution” methods to subvert a regime abroad, and it was also the beginning of the US using non-war means to suppress communist and socialist ideology. In the words of CIA Chief Historian David Robarge, the 1948 operation became a “template” for subsequent CIA operations in “many, many countries.” On June 21, 2020, the US magazine *Foreign Affairs* website published an article titled “When the CIA Interferes in Foreign Elections—The Inside Story of Modern US Covert Operations,” publicly revealing the facts of the US engaging in “color revolutions” and subverting other countries’ regimes.

Another classic case of a “color revolution” was the overthrow of the Milošević regime in Yugoslavia in 2000. From mid-1999 to the end of 2000, the United States spent a total of approximately 40 million US dollars on the Serbia project. CIA officer John Sipher said: “We covertly supported Milošević’s opponents.” The CIA provided funds and other types of assistance to the opposition, a fact confirmed by Clinton. What was presented to the world, however, was that because Milošević cheated in the vote count, the populace erupted in large-scale protests, and Milošević was forced to resign due to his inability to quell the popular revolution.

From today’s perspective, we can only clearly recognize that the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union were actually the practical application of the US “color revolution” script in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Starting in the 1980s, the US CIA began joint operations with Soros’s hedge fund, organizing so-called “Helsinki Groups” in Kyiv, Moscow, and other major Soviet cities. Their task was to organize a psychological war and discredit the Soviet system. These groups, under the guise of “democracy and freedom,” actually aimed to change the nature of the target country’s regime through “color revolutions,” installing leaders subservient to the United States to consolidate America’s world hegemonic position. To this end, the United States invested a large amount of human and material resources. In 1989, the United States ignited the “Velvet Revolution” in Czechoslovakia, and subsequently triggered a broader “Velvet Revolution” in other socialist countries in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In the series of “color revolutions” from 1989 to 1991, one after another, the socialist countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe announced the abandonment of the socialist system and communist ideology, adopting Western political systems, implementing privatization, and embracing Western liberal market economies. The United States implemented a “peaceful evolution” without firing a shot, causing most socialist countries to switch to the capitalist path, with only five countries—China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, and Cuba—continuing to adhere to the socialist path. The United States thereby won the “Cold War” against the Soviet Union, gained enormous geopolitical, economic, and human resource benefits, and ascended to the position of global hegemon. The results of the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union indicate that the tasks set by the US CIA were excellently accomplished.

It was precisely in this “color revolution” that Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union, initiating a process of institutional transition and social transformation oriented towards the capitalist system.

2. Ukraine Experienced Two More “Color Revolutions” After Independence

Ukraine’s independence is one of the most significant geopolitical changes in Europe since the Second World War. “Ukraine is situated at the geopolitical center of Europe,” being the only European country located at the junction of the three blocs of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Western Europe, and Central and Eastern Europe. At the same time, influenced by historical, practical, ethnic, social, and cultural factors, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia has always been one of “very special neighbors.” “It is no secret to anyone that the West and international capital have always regarded Ukraine and its people as tools for the struggle for geopolitical dominance, and for monitoring the territory, markets, and resources of the former Soviet Union and today’s Russia.”

After the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States saw the possibility of seeking greater interests in the former Soviet and Eastern European regions. It openly violated the promise made to Soviet leader Gorbachev during German reunification that “NATO would not expand eastward,” and continuously pushed for NATO’s eastward expansion. Today, NATO has expanded from 12 founding member states to 30 member states.

In the process of advancing NATO’s eastward expansion, the United States also launched multiple “color revolutions” in the former Soviet and Eastern European regions and their peripheries, expanding the sphere of influence of the US-led West. In 2003, the “Rose Revolution” took place in Georgia; in 2004, the “Orange Revolution” occurred in Ukraine; these were followed by the “Purple Revolution” in Iraq, the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, and the “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan. This triggered the “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia as part of the “Arab Spring,” which then unfolded in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Other Arab countries were also affected to varying degrees, experiencing demonstrations of a certain scale, which gradually subsided with concessions from multiple governments.

Ten years after the outbreak of the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, in 2014, the United States launched another so-called “Revolution of Dignity.” Since Ukraine had already experienced the “Orange Revolution” in 2004, why did a “color revolution” occur again in Ukraine? This must be analyzed based on the evolution of Ukraine’s political situation. After the 2004 “Orange Revolution,” pro-Western forces were pushed onto Ukraine’s political stage. The “Orange Revolution” faction showed no improvement in governing the country, and by February 2010, Yanukovych won the presidential election and began serving as President of Ukraine. Shortly after taking office, Yanukovych implemented a series of measures to suppress pro-Western right-wing forces, nullifying the achievements of Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution.” Observing Ukraine’s political development process after independence, it can be seen that Ukraine has constantly vacillated between the West and Russia, seeking benefits from both sides. When major economic and strategic interests are involved, the measures taken by pro-Western forces and pro-Russian forces in power differ markedly. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian stance led him to hesitate in signing the Association Agreement with the European Union, which became the trigger for the new round of “color revolution” in 2014. A.A. Belenok pointed out that since the 2004 “Orange Revolution,” Ukraine had been instilling in its people the idea that Europe is a model for social system construction. However, the “European miracle” did not appear in Ukraine, and the “new life” brought endless suffering to the Ukrainian people.

3. Three “Color Revolutions” Propelled Ukraine’s Regime to Continuously “Turn Right”

“Color revolutions” have a distinct ideological character. From the first “color revolution” launched by the United States against the Italian Communist Party, to the “Velvet Revolution” [7]7 The “Velvet Revolution” refers to the non-violent transition of power in Czechoslovakia in 1989 that ended the Communist Party’s rule. promoted against the socialist systems of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, to the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and the “Revolution of Dignity” in Ukraine, throughout this series of “color revolutions,” the three Baltic states, Georgia, and Ukraine successively introduced “decommunization” bills. This all indicates that “color revolutions” have a distinct ideological character. After the success of a “color revolution,” the politicians brought to the political stage in these countries are all those favored by the United States, who, when in power, tend to safeguard US interests and defend the US position.

After the 2014 “Revolution of Dignity,” Ukraine held elections for the Verkhovna Rada [8]8 The Verkhovna Rada is the unicameral parliament of Ukraine. in October of that year. In these elections, pro-Western and nationalist parties received widespread support from voters, and extremist nationalist parties, previously on the margins of Ukraine’s political landscape, rose rapidly. The pro-Western and radicalized stance of the newly installed Ukrainian authorities met with resistance from the predominantly ethnic Russian populations in southern and eastern Ukraine. The direct consequence was Crimea’s incorporation into Russia through a “referendum,” and the declaration of independent people’s republics in Donetsk and Luhansk. In this situation, the Ukrainian authorities refused to recognize the self-proclaimed independence of Donetsk and Luhansk and sent Ukrainian government forces to eastern Ukraine in an attempt to suppress the “rebellion,” plunging Ukraine into a state of civil war. Regarding the regime that came to power in Ukraine through the “Revolution of Dignity,” the Communist Party of Ukraine assessed it as follows: “The most reactionary right-wing populist forces and pro-Western comprador forces, for their own interests, exploited popular discontent, using pseudo-democratic rhetoric and the slogan ‘European choice first,’ to successfully subordinate the resistance movement to their struggle for power, and to the interests of the West, primarily US monopoly capital, giving the resistance movement an anti-Russian character.” To achieve this goal, the United States spent a huge amount of money, amounting to as much as $5 billion by 2014. In the report of its 49th Congress, the Communist Party of Ukraine pointed out that, to implement the “Revolution of Dignity” in Ukraine, following the practice of “color revolutions,” the United States trained thousands of armed militants equipped with sophisticated weapons both inside and outside Ukraine in advance. Long before the tragic events in Kyiv’s squares and streets in 2014, the United States began studying how to transport “protesters” to the Ukrainian capital, where they would stay, what they would eat, how medical services would be provided, how to ensure the orderly deployment of militants, how to transport car tires for burning, and how to prepare “Molotov cocktails,” and so on. Therefore, the crisis that erupted in Ukraine in early 2014 was by no means a “spontaneous” event. The “Maidan gatherings” [9]9 “Maidan” refers to Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv, the central site of the 2013-2014 protests that led to the “Revolution of Dignity.” in Kyiv and other “Maidan gatherings” cultivated and assembled gangs of “hundreds” and “gang battalions,” which were essentially private armies. They obeyed the orders of oligarchs or opposition figures within government institutions and were used to brutally suppress people who voiced dissatisfaction with the policies of the anti-people regime. On the surface, the “Maidan gatherings” appeared to be a unique form of civil society institution, but in reality, they were the worst form of manipulated mob politics. What was called the rule of a large group of people was actually a large group of people being used by oligarchs and politicians for their own selfish interests, diverting attention from pressing issues and plunging the people into misery.

The Ukrainian authorities, who came to power through “color revolutions,” continuously “turned right,” leading to a strange phenomenon in Ukraine: political posturing took precedence over attention to economic and livelihood development. The result was first a state of national misery, then a slide into civil war, and subsequently into the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This serves as a warning: regimes that come to power through “color revolutions” are usually comprador regimes, and the radical policies implemented by comprador regimes are detrimental to national development. Furthermore, both far-right and “far-left” policies are harmful to national development. If a country seeks development, its regime must avoid extremism. In 2014, after the new Ukrainian government took office, it targeted and suppressed citizens based on their ethnicity. This behavior was the root cause of pushing Ukraine toward division, civil war, and further into the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Whether they are ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, or other ethnic groups, they should all be citizens of Ukraine with equal rights and should receive equal status. The new Ukrainian government failed to govern from a moral high ground. The far-right policies of the Ukrainian authorities led to the country’s division, civil war, and the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, causing the country to miss opportunities for development and even turning the country into an arena for great-power games, forcing its own people to suffer the consequences of national destruction, family loss, and displacement.

III. Public Opinion Overlooked in Ukraine’s 30-Plus Years of Capitalist Transformation

Since independence, Ukraine’s socioeconomic model has been extremely unfair to the vast majority of its citizens in terms of national income distribution. Over more than 30 years of independence, a notable feature of Ukraine has been a sharp increase in inequality between the rich/super-rich and the rest of the population, especially the poor. “In the Scandinavian countries, the average income of the richest 1% of the population is 8 times that of the poorest 50%; in Europe it is roughly 13 times; in the United States, 25 times; in Ukraine it has reached almost 46 times; and in Kyiv, as high as 96 times.” [10]10 The source of this quotation is not provided in the original text; it likely originates from a study on income inequality in Ukraine. Years of social survey data show that a large proportion of the broad Ukrainian populace opposes the capitalist system, opposes the privatization of large enterprises, opposes land privatization, and hopes the state will implement a mixed economy. Unfortunately, the voices of the people have been consistently ignored.

III. The Neglected Public Opinion in Ukraine’s 30-Plus Years of Capitalist Transformation

On the attitude of Ukrainian citizens toward the country’s choice of the capitalist or socialist path. As can be seen from Table 3, between 1994 and 2016, the proportion of Ukrainian citizens supporting the capitalist path ranged from 8.9% to 17.1%, never exceeding one-fifth. Clearly, popular support for Ukraine’s turn to the capitalist path has been relatively low, which is consistent with the reality and current situation that the broad masses have gained no sense of benefit from the country’s development after the transition.

On the issue of privatization, Ukrainian citizens also hold clear attitudes. As can be observed from Table 4, citizens’ attitudes toward the privatization of small enterprises are diametrically opposed to their attitudes toward the privatization of large enterprises: the proportion of citizens in favor of privatizing small enterprises has always been higher than the proportion opposed. In 2020, 49.7% of citizens favored privatizing small enterprises, while 28.6% opposed it. Admittedly, compared with the 1990s, the number supporting small-enterprise privatization is decreasing, while the number opposing it is increasing. These data prove that, since Ukraine’s independence, the number of citizens who do not accept privatization has been growing steadily. The latest data also show that, after abandoning the illusions of the 1990s, Ukrainian citizens have opposed the privatization of the country’s main strategic resource—land—since around 2005. The gap between supporters and opponents of the land privatization system has narrowed somewhat, contrary to the content of the Memorandum of Cooperation with the International Monetary Fund, which set “tasks” for Ukraine to accelerate the liberalization of the land market, including agricultural land. Ukrainian society shows a negative attitude toward the privatization of large enterprises, small enterprises, and land, with the negative attitude toward large-enterprise privatization being even stronger. Regarding the privatization of large enterprises, around 2005 the proportion of Ukrainian citizens opposing large-enterprise privatization rose to a high level; for example, in 2006, two-thirds of respondents opposed large-enterprise privatization, while only one-tenth favored it. Thereafter, the number of opponents of large-enterprise privatization decreased somewhat, while the number of supporters nearly doubled. In the 1990s, Ukraine’s large-scale privatization deviated from the national interest. Over more than 30 years of independence, Ukraine’s working people have been unable to restrain the greed of oligarchs and financial magnates, who have not invested their income in purchasing luxury goods and consumption, nor in real estate and coastal offshore areas, but rather in national stabilization funds and returns on labor savings. Consequently, Ukrainian citizens have begun to identify more with the idea of nationalizing large enterprises.

On the role of the state in managing the economy, the majority of Ukrainian citizens support a mixed economy, that is, combining planning and the market in one economic model. This reached a maximum of 51.4% in 2016, though the number voting for a mixed economic system decreased somewhat in 2020 (see Table 5). In second place were supporters of full nationalization of the economy and a return to a fully planned economy, reaching a maximum of 33.4% in 2012, but their number is far from sufficient to restore an administrative-command socialist model. Supporters of “the market decides everything” have always been a clear minority, peaking at only 14.2% in 2017. Ukrainian citizens do not all endorse a liberal economy with minimal state intervention, which is further evidence of their rejection of the capitalist economic system.

In response to the question “How fair is the society you live in?”, 20.6% of respondents believed that the current society is one with no fairness at all, and 31.2% considered it very unfair. This means that roughly half of Ukrainian citizens (51.8%) regard their society as unfair. Over one-third of respondents (37.5%) took a middle position, which can be interpreted as believing that the society they live in is unfair in some respects and fair in others. Only 10.7% of Ukrainian citizens considered Ukrainian society fair, a clear minority.

The answers to the question of whether the national economic system serves the rich or the broad masses, along with evaluations of the fairness of the various socioeconomic systems that have taken shape in Ukraine, have led Ukrainian citizens to perceive Ukrainian society as unequal. According to social survey data from the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the overwhelming majority of respondents (71.3%) believe that Ukraine’s economic system serves only the rich; only 10.8% believe it serves the vast majority of Ukrainians; and 17.9% of respondents were unable to answer the question.

Through the above investigation and analysis, we can draw a basic conclusion: Ukraine’s 30-plus years of capitalist transformation have been 30-plus years in which Ukraine’s oligarchs and big capitalist groups have reaped actual benefits, and 30-plus years in which the broadest masses have lost a prosperous and strong country, lost a calm and stable daily life, and lost their hopes for the country’s future. This warns us that if a country’s political power is seized by oligarchs and big capitalist groups, it is inevitable that national interests and the interests of the people will not become the core considerations. (References, notes, and tables omitted)

(The author is an associate professor and master’s supervisor at the School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and an associate research fellow at the Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)

Online editor: Zhang Jian