Why did communism in Poland fail?

It is quite an interesting point, Communism or socialism. Socialism is the path to communism (final stage). All of the Poles I know always refer to the period as ' under socialism' now this could be a denial of a ' communist past '

here is some info:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance, the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association.

As an economic system, socialism is the direct allocation of capital goods (means of production) to meet economic demands so that production is oriented toward use and accounting is based on some physical magnitude, such as physical quantities or a direct measure of labour time. Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Some currents of socialism, often referred to as state socialism, advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, arise spontaneously. They advocate direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), who coined the term socialisme, advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[9] Saint-Simon, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production that results in instability and cyclical crises of overproduction.Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production

SeanBM, I found these two articles quite interesting about the topic of discussion.

fff.org/freedom/0290a.asp

socialismtoday.org/63/solidarnosc.html

Actually communism always boosts production the first years it applies but it stagnates later.

Thanks for reminding me, I have to make a reply in that old thread. :):):)


In short: in communism nothing is private and everything belongs to people. If everything is everybody`s in theory, as a result, it is nobody`s in practice. Consequently, nobody cared about anything and that is why it all slowly went to the dogs. :):):)

What do you mean?

I thought that's what you meant by "guilt." All the wars over bits of land.

Solidarnosc.

Modernisation was needed, simple.

The communist - IDEA - is actually quite good.

Every one earns the same amount. All public services, transport and entertainment are free.

There will be no cases of local councillors or BBC exectuties earning 2-3 times that of the
prime minister for doing feck all. No football players making 80K a week for kicking a ball ( not
even that in some cases) etc

Communism failed because of human greed and paranoia. The people at the top started skimming and became
corrupt.

So the construction worker building skyscrapers makes as much as person conducting museum tours?

(as i said in my old reply, it wasn't communism or socialism that failed, it was soviets/russians that failed. so why failed?)

Failed cause there was a bigger monster, monarchies & religious institutions, that saw this newcomer as enemy (like it always happens anywhere in religions, in scientific findings, etc etc.) and soviets/russians hadn't understood socialism well enough yet, hence, they were not strong enough yet to challenge against those who saw this socialism newcomer as enemy.

Btw, another reason, a pragmatic reason for their fails of Soviets/Russians was that; Turkey. Between 1975-1980, Turkey was an international arena for all kinds of ideologies and heavy anarchies. Tens of tousands of people were killed. By the end of 1980, anarchy was at its peak level and a military coup stopped total anarchy and it helped the west, it was an important cornerstone, a stop for soviets/russians's progress.. Turkey folks were fifty-fifty at right and at left. If Turkey joined then to Soviets, things today would be totally different.. Maybe, this is just a time delay.. Maybe, West will do a better socialism system.

the same reason capitalism will fail : starvation, police state, theft by ruling class, and the grass looked better on other side.

Capitalism has failed zillions of times in the history. But, if you see money as capitalism, then, it hasn't failed anywhere, even in Soviets, China, etc too..

Maybe, capitalism, socialism, etc are needed to be understood well first - before talking about Poland..

Lets take a simple, concrete example: Saudi Arabia.
It is a country with religious/sharia laws rules, with capitalism economy for ordinary folks, with a palace with socialism life inside (according to a capitalist person who worked hard to make money to live as royals there live freely without doing any real work), even with godless communism life inside palace (according to revealed rumors that say there are drug, heroin, sex parties, etc. there in the palace.)

Communism failed in Poland because Poles were not great communists.

Why did communism in Poland fail?

Perhaps because many, if not most, Poles were never fully onboard after 1945.

I recently watched (again) Andrzej Wajda's Ashes & Diamonds (1958). Although the film is politically ambiguous, I was shocked that it somehow got past the party censors. If Poland could produce a film like that in the 1950s, then communism as a state ideology was certainly doomed in the long run.

Communism failed in Poland just like it failed everywhere else. The whole idea was bad to begin with. In Israel we used to be proud that we had the only successful example of pure socialism, the kibbutz. But in the past 15 years the kibbutzim (that's plural for kibbutz) also started changing and privatizing and gradually became normal farming villages where familes live normal lives with private ownership and salaries.

In the old days the collective system worked well because it was on a very small scale and everyone on a kibbutz knew each other personally. That helped strengthen the feeling of common responsibility that you need to keep people working for the collective. There was no private property, people lived simply and ate together in the communal dining room. All this was accomplished without the brutality associated with state communism, because of the small scale and personal involvement. But even without the need to overthrow tyranny, the system faded away. Financial considerations overpowered ideology. It was bound to happen after a generation or two.

So if you take Poland where the whole system was imposed on a countrywide level by force, it was bound to fail.

Oh I remember you announced the most ridiculous idea of racist Russians (if my memory serves me well)...

It failed in Russia cause C. has never been in tunes with the very Russian character. If it was you would most likely live with it at the moment.

It has always taken an iron hand to keep the Russians adhered to C. untill C. finally regenerated into its harmless forms of Brezhnev's deadlock and that was practically a point of no return.

Besides it answers the question of why C. caused so many victims in the USSR compared to nazism of the 3rd Reich.

You remember correct, but, with a small missing point.. I didn't say racist Russians, but, racist Russians deep state center. After 1930s, they took the control of Soviets and designs changed according to their ideology.

Who were they racist towards?

Name of Soviets were "International" Socialism etc. This "internationalism" concept attracted ordinary workers of the world in the past. Good concept. But, they were not aware of that Soviet center was in their control of Russian nationalists who had used these concepts to make Russia a superpower starting 1930. We can see this in inequalities in Soviets lands between Russia and other states during Soviet times, also later, post-Soviet times. So, actually, Soviets were not different than any feudal country in a-socialist countries. Still, Soviets could be given a chance, but, monarchies & their religious institutions around the world who have been a huge monster for centuries had attacked them by bloody way and Soviets fell in this blood trap cause its center's mentality of Soviets too was not different than them, like them, racist feudals..

As my Polish teacher in high school, a confirmed communist, used to say: If people were angels, communism would be like Paradise.


Unfortunately, people are not angels. That is why the system had to fail .:(:(:(


No! People who rejected communism weren`t paranoic. They were very clever, in fact.

However, if you look at communism from another angle, like communial life,,

there are more than 200 countries in the world today.. Each of them is having a communial life.. So, there are 200 communist countries in the world today. So, how communism failed?

Common understanding of these concepts are like that:

Country with administrations by laws is a communism. (in this sense, even Sharia is a communist system.)

Country with administrations by money is not communism.

(wondering who are communists and who aren't now,;)

Not really. Communism is only one, characterised by Soviet rule and electrification!

Коммунизм, это власть советов плюс электрификация всей

Any names of Russian nationalists?


Oftentimes not in Russia's favour.


See what you said... Soviets have has the religious institutions for centruies. What the hell is that?
Again "racist"... who was racist towards whom?

No need to give any names.

Looking at their behaviour collections of Soviets after 1930s, I see nationalism in Soviets. Their system in Soviets is not an international system actually, but, a nationalist system that was in control of Russians in Moscow mainly. I mentioned big inequalities between different folks of Soviets. But, when you say oftentimes not in favor, nothing to say more. I don't even need to prove this big inequalities between nations in Soviets, it has become clear after Soviet system was gone. Among all Soviet nations, only Russians arised as power, the rest were weak. But, it is normal, it was socialism "inter-national" which is a term not much different than "united nations". When there are nations in a concept, even if it is united nations or international, it hides nationalism even if indirectly.

True, religious institutions in Soviets too were alive, were underground and they were collobrating with other religious institutions in the world. Soviets should not have put them underground, they should have left them free, but, without any financial, any money support directly or by indirectly by folks.. When religion institutions are left without money, they lose their all powers except voluntary services.

Again racist.. Racism against folks inside Soviet domain. Why do you think ordinary folks of former Soviet countries don't like Russians? Cause they lived Russian racism in their daily lifes.

Anyway. While I am critisizing Soviets so much, I can't say they were worse than feudal world which is still a big monster power..

Then no need to discuss this bollocks either.


I haven't heard a single proof of that it was actually nationalistic as you claim. Who are those miracle Russians I'm still eager to hear.

There's nothing wrong with centralized control from the capital of the state.


I meant that let's say that Baltic States had always been better off than the Russian part of the Union.
Well... the Soviet people were more equal (save for the Politburo members) than people of Europe or the US nowadays. After the SU had gone the former USSR set a course for capitalism which by definition makes people unequal.


So eventually the Russians were the source of racism?.. a couple messages back you said something about the racist center. :) Make up your mind!
That's wrong to presume that ordinary folk of the former USSR don't like the Russians. And even if it's the case like with Nathan notorious for his generally Russo-phobic notion, it's the matter of the Russian invasive policy which is largely linked to its biggest folk group - to the Russians.

So I still want to hear... names, examples... :)
Considering that the vast majority of the Soviet leaders were ethnically non-Russians, that would be particularly to hear you saying who they were eventually racist to. Towards the Russians perhaps?

You still insist on names.. Isn't it enough to see the only power emerged from Soviets is Russia? How did they become a superpower? Russia was a monarchy which was about to collapse prior to revolution there. After revolution, after a decade or two, when socialism became productive, Russians started to take control of Soviets and they destroyed internationalism/multiculturalism that is one of first important criterie in international socialism which was the base of Soviets. After 1930s, with increasing Russian nationalism and racism over other folks in Soviets which showed itself more by force and blood invasions too, Soviets were no more socialists.. True, there were ploys and bloody attacks from out of Soviets to Soviets. If Soviets pressed on nuke buttons then, it could be much better than bloody actions and forces to the folks inside Soviets. Anyway, as I said, Russians were not cooked enough well to form and keep socialism. They didn't understand it well. Maybe, theory makers like Marx etc should have been on top of administrations. If you give the administrations to the workers who aren't isolated themselves against nationalist etc feelings and who aren't knowledgable enough about global issues, sooner or later, it returns to nationalist administrations and what happened in Soviets was that. Since Russians were at center of administrations, it is normal to see Russia as emerged country. From one empire, Soviets, a new empire, Russia emerged. Socialism should be established by its theory founders, scientists, scholars themselves. Or, people who are not knowledgable enough will make themselves kings, queens, etc when they take a little power. Perhaps, scientists/scholars not knowing what to do are just staying away from applications of their theories as they prefer not to take any risk. It is like engineering academican professor who is doing lab work as maximum field work while leaving risky application to engineers in the real field. Socialism was somethings like that. It was in their hands of people who were not knowledgable about economy, its social issues, etc etc and it was not enough open society.. maybe, its timing wasn't good enough as we are talking about almost a century ago.. This Europe today who claim they know better will maybe have to do a better socialism. Search for this will have to happen as Europe get poorer and poorer. But, I see resistive forces alread started to act, toward escaping to fundamentalism, racism, nationalism, christianism etc..

I'm sorry but I think you either need to read more or to read right things.


How do you expect I should unravel this tangle of a bullcrap?

You are the first man I see who is able post a page of the text that doesn't make any sense at all.
Names and deeds! No othert way around, old commy! ;)

What makes you such an expert?

??
Expert in what?

It's perhaps vice versa: I lack knowledge to decipher the phrase in bold. :)