Why did communism in Poland fail?

Ulysses by Joyce, for one...

Now that's a book and a half.

The most important fact is that we always had strong democratic traditions, like noble democracy, tolerance, first constitution.
We've always belonged to the western world and communism came by force, we got betrayed by Allies.
Over time, the so-called west, which we were before and are right now, forgot that it was you who betrayed us and that's why now you credit us as 'Eastern Europe' and most people think that communism was a bad experiment that we agreed to take part in.

I think that's probably the main point.
Communism, after all, was the Soviet Union's occupation of Poland as a puppet state.

But the question is about communism not the Soviet Union, if you know what I mean?

Russia was a monarchy before 1917. With sudden transition from monarchy to socialism, socialism wasn't understood well enough. There is a Re-public-ing system first in which there is a democracy which is a path toward taking individual responsibilities too. In Soviets, centre power was a monarch/nationalists who didn't know such things like individualism and democracy yet and socialism was seen by people as dictation-from-top like it happens in monarchies. Poland under such a monarchist center of Soviets was more ready for socialism actually. If socialism started in Poland, it could be more successful than Russia socialism. Anyway, socialism, like any other system, has to be chosen by ordinary people and this process stage can happen in Republic system better.

Are these two statements not contradictory?
First you say the Monarch transformed then you go on to say that it was a monarch/nationalism system.


I'm not buying whatever you're selling.


Name a system, that has existed ever, which this has not happened in?


I am with you on democracy but (always a but), democracy can only work if the ordinary people are well informed. And I have my doubts about that.

No, not contradictory. Transformation from monarchy to socialism happened directly, without elections like it happens in republic systems. Then, altough its name was socialist soviets, center of system was still monarchic/nationalist. Libya's country name too is socialist, but, it is very close to monarchy system, just unofficial/undeclared monarchy.


dictation-from-top usually happens in monarchies. Laws are accordingly. When ordinary people in a monarchy don't like a law, they have nothing to do, other than revolting by blood. In Republic system, a law is made by elected representatives and if it is not liked by ordinary people, elected representatives lose their seats which is not a case in a monarchy as monarchy elites always think they think better than ordinary people. Republic system is a search toward better by softer actions and involvements of ordinary people in decision makings are forced slowly and gradually. My guess, ordinary people will reach a kind of socialism at the end. For example, private possessions of resources (lands etc) will not be liked by any ordinary person at the end as it will always cause troubles. State too won't own resources, but, can be organizators about adjustments of use of resources by elected experts by ordinary people.

Democracy is a transition period toward understanding experts in every fields better and better. For example, today, people search better medicine doctors and chose accordingly. If anything results good or bad, it is in patient's responsibility too. However, to minimize mistakes, to make better decisions on who is better expert or not, there will probably be a period of learning/understanding which may occur in a socialist system once resource privateships end. Anyway, it is a further stage that probably next generations will think about. Today, we still have monarchy systems in which people still try to keep their seats.

Communism failed ultimately because it could not outspend capitalism and went bust!

Ok,then the only logical answer to OP question is:Communism in Poland failed because Soviet Union failed.Right or wrong?

Ultimately, I beleive the answer is yes.

Right. But, it wasn't communism that failed. Even at time Poland became a part of Soviets, Soviets were not communists. (in true sense of communism. Or, if we are to define communism as state control economy, all countries in the world are partially communists. In this sense, communism has failed or not? as still exists everywhere at every country in the world.)

Seems like it was too good for you to get a decent respond.


Russia had not 800 such "lords" not even 800.000.


I thought we were talking about the past events that had their reflection in present. Russia isn't a monarchy nowadays it's therefore completely irrelevant to draw any parallel with the UK.


They were elites. There's no point whatsoever in talking about the gone people using present tense. :)


Do you hear yourself? :)) it could be said that everyone is nationalistic but not enough and that's why they were exterminated by more nationalistic people. Great theory but stop wandering please and say something that's really worth discussion.

I.e. you might have named those who designed revolution that would have sorted everything out.

You shouldn't have skipped that indispensable moment.


It's either lie or ignorance. I somehow think you tend to have them both. A quick look at any lists of those who were sentenced to death at Soviet era could explode that given that you're able to tell a Russian last name from Turkic one.

Let me stop with your drivel here...

You expect me to say they were "zionists" who designed revolution and then, we would have sorted everything out?

Designers must be true.
They designed international socialism starting in Russia.
They designed national socialism starting in Germany.
Anyway, even Marx himself too was a zionist.

Everythings really logical and I agree..

However, theory/design makers are a thing, appliers are another thing.
For example, this computer wasn't designed by me, but, I have been using it, differently than some others. You know this computer is used differently by many different groups from prn to radicals to sport hooligans to etc etc etc.. Russians got socialism tool like this computer and they used it for their own nationalist beneficiaries at Moscow center especially starting with late 1920s, when WWI was ended and a new era had started. The period between 1917 and late 1920s were not so important, it was a post-war periods everywhere in the world. Even in Turkey, there were many new revolutions in social lifes, etc. So, we need to look at Soviets more after 1930 to see the character of Soviets. It was more Russian nationalism than socialism, let alone international socialism. For Soviets, actually for Russian nationalists, after 1930, socialism became just a tool, absurdly used tool, like this computer tech which is also being used by radical nationalist right wings today. Anyway, it was still good to see that socialism, an old historical desired system of ordinary folks, became an official name of countries. Even this is a big step in human history. I believe other folks too will try and will maybe do a better socialist system in their countries. Or, as Marx said, maybe, it is time to go for global socialism, who knows. I see revolts, protests everywhere in the world. Just yesterday, 250,000 people in Israel protested and complained about their stiuations. If such a thing happened even in Israel, sleeping lazy folks in kingdoms including Arab kingdoms have no right to critisize anywhere else..

Has communism failed ?...............you still have zero tolerance policing and thats communist in itself. There is also still the patriotic nationalist ideaology that is perpetuated by the government and which the Polish adhere to devoutly.............this isnt a kick in the ass of russian comminist ideaology

You are being sarcastic I hope. Marx died before the Zionist movement was founded. If you're trying to say that he held beliefs similar to the Zionist approach, then I guess you've never read his "Zur Judenfrage". Marx discussed the issue of emanication of the Jews in Europe, mostly from an economic point of view, and their assimilation into European society. The idea of them reviving themselves as a nation and moving back to the ancient homeland would have seemed bizarre to him.

Right enough, yehudi. He died just 10 years before ideas of a Jewish homeland were being bandied about. Herzl started discussions around 1893, right?

As for communism in Poland, it had past its sell-by date. Certain world powers wanted it dismantled but, of course, Solidarity did their part from within.

Zionism isn't a new thing in its normal meaning. This word zionism is said to appeare first time in a work of Iranian Jew historian in 11th century. Zionism in early days was not more than the hajj-ism which is like Mekka hajj-ism of muslims, St Mariam hajj-ism of Catholics, etc. Religious Jews in old days were desiring to visit Zion hill in Jerusalem and this is normal. Those who were desiring Zion hill was being called zion-ists. Its meaning was twisted later in last century when some wealthy Jews were interested in really buying Zion hill and its around. No need to blame. In history, many land buy and sell happened many times. This is just one of them. Marx of course knew zionism, but, since he is a respected man, a science scholar, he didn't mention such things clearly not to enter unnecessary debates.

Because everything in Poland fails....

If you can,t get a dam plug socket to stay in a wall , what chance have you got to make a politcal system work.....?

Just because you failed in Poland (and not only in Poland,you know what I am talking about) doesn't mean everything does.

Communism was killed by capitalism?

I am not responsible for communism....or Polish electrical sockets...

nope. just a time-out ;)


supposedly not, but my guess is that the uk electrical supply often offers similar bs like polish one :D

I am not so sure about that but still communism and electrical sockets are not everything.(And I apologize for the low blow.I really do.)

dude you would know what he was talking about if you knew Polish plug sockets.


I was actually going to write communism was killed by capitalism only for communism to rise from the dead, anyway the new system will not be classed as communism, but i guess that will be an association that will always stick.

and with post number 4500, i'm off to bed.

Nighty night all - where ever you may be.

Hey...no problem... its forgotton...

If you want to define Zionism as the age-old desire of Jews to return to Zion, then Marx was even further from that than he was from the political Zionist movement later started by Herzl (years after Marx died). Marx was not interested in anything having to do with the Jewish religion, which he hated, or Jewish peoplehood, which he saw as an economic issue.

To say Marx was a zionist makes as much sense as saying that he was a Buddhist. Drop it.

Marx was a high level intellectual scholar, low level realist, low level pragmatist..
Herzl-like people are more realist, more pragmatist. They foresaw that Jews in Europe after all troubles for centuries had needed a land to be able to live safely.

I didn't say Marx was a believer of a religion, in Judaism or in any other religion. But, like all people, he too knew that there was a term zion-ism, even before Marx himself too, which hadn't become reality till Herzl-like people started to make it real due to the need.

While Marx-like high level intellectuals were busy with socialism in Germany, Europe and Russia, people like Herzl, also seeing experiences of Marx-likes, became more pragmatic and went for realizing Zion movement which I consider it was totally necessary. But, Marx-like people will be understood later, after we live economy crisis more and more.

Communism collapsed of it's own weight, because it was a failed construct.

Beside, the international bankers who created it were moving to a more efficient way to enrich themselves called globalism.

gorbatschow sold it and jelzin finished the job ;)


;)

Very insightful! I recently fell while walking because my walk was ... not good.

I've found an interesting thought on communism in Larry Harris book on markets structure. He says communism fell in large part because communication problems; economy planning is to complex to be solved by any single agency. And it seems to hit the nail on the had. It's more efficient to let a person organise its life than try to gather all the information about all the people in the country to decide what supposed to be done.