Why did communism in Poland fail?

Not really if we think that money existed in all communist countries.Communism is based on the theory that workers should own the means of production.(factories etc).

Personal interests are main human engines. Attempt to found the production processes (free from slavery and mastery)not taking seriously human nature had to fail. That is what the winners of the Cold war, the worshipers of Capital, Profit, Market say. I heard even some psychologists now claim that people are programed to be simple non thinking consumers. Science as usual a b1tch.

Communism failed mostly because of its numerous Own-goals. Again "irreparable" human nature is accused for the final result.
I think people are adaptable by nature. I believe....
:))

Communists used a mathematical formula by which they derived resources from consumer goods production to means of production and military weapons production.The West played a crucial role to the collapse of communism since SU had to spend 45% of its GDP for armaments production to equal the 15% of US GDP spending for the same reason during the arms race for star wars program.It was one of the ways Reagan used to bring SU to its knees advised by Bredzinski.

The other two methods they used were the sponsoring of mujas in Afghanistan and the pressure to Saudis to increase oil production so that oil prices fall and SU economy is severely damaged by lost revenues.

The arms race was a frightening time.

I remember as a kid hearing that the S.U. had enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 13 times over.
I thought "What's the point, after the first time it's all over..."


Straight out of a movie, gotta love it :)

Where did you get that from Southern?

See: China and the end of the Deng Dynasty, Stratfor site:

stratfor.com/weekly/20110418-china-and-end-deng-dynasty

Why did communism in Poland fail?

To answer this question one should know what communism was/is and who were/are communists?

My answer to this question:

First, communism is fie, nasty and evil.

Second, communists are those labelled as such by CIA or similar agencies but equally fie, nasty and evil as this one.

What is your answer?

atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml

They called it SDI at that time but became famous as star wars.The problem for the Soviets was that they falsely estimated that star wars would lead them to loss of military equilibration with USA during the next decade while Reagan was very well informed that the program could not bring any results he just used it to kneel the SU and gain negotiating cards.

Ronald Reagan's star wars program (not a film or TV series) i remember that.

Lot of good that did, the Russian answer to that was also a concept right out of the movies, the Perimetr system, fully operational since January 85. If we can't have it, no one will, now there’s philosophy for you, taking it all to a new level.

Why did communism in Poland fail the same reason the capitalism will fail and the same reason Arab world is uprising
corruption by ruling class, starvation by poor class just get ready for the fireworks near you sooner or later.

that essentially is the main reason i suppose.

Communism didnt provide any hope for the people, capitalism does on the other hand which is why its been relatively more successful, it doesn't change the fact though that if you are born poor its very likely you will die poor.

Unless there is a totally level playing field i cant see how any system will ever work in the long run, unless we achieve this social stratification will raise its ugly head and the poor will fight back. In most cases the poor will vastly outnumber the rich.

Communism or socialism has not failed, Russians have failed. However, they can say they didn't fail as they arised as a power (remember they are one of five permanent UN members) using socialism/soviet.

In socialism, nuclear weapons could be cancelled, but, Russians didn't do that. So, they were not socialists actually. With this simple visible criteria, Americans calling Europe (where many nukes exist) as socialists don't make sense. Remember many countries in Europe from Britain to Spain, Serbia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc are still monarchies. Don't say they are symbolics. I can prove otherwise. So, World are still challenging about monarchy and republic regimes. Socialism in Soviets were too early. But, these days/years, socialism may dominate the world more. For example, Japan nuclear reactor accident may force whole world to close all nuclear reactors soon. If any nuclear reactor accident happens in Europe, millions of babies may die due to radiation as they will be effected first and most. Japans' was an accident, now, world know this truth, such a probability which is a very big risk as it is about the life, lifes of babies. Leaders around here or elsewhere in the world who keep nuclear reactors open and folks who keep themselves silence will be called baby murderers if any nuclear reactor accident happens. Scientists say risk is minimal. Hey, control technology is primitive comparing with nuke technology. Even if control technology is developed enough, you also need to be able to control humans as workers who will work at nuclear reactors are humans. You may not know a healthy mind human working at nuclear reactor can change one day and can do somethings in nuclear reactor which may result in big damages everywhere. So, thinking such things too are a kind of socialism as humans are thought before energy, money, power. Socialism is an obligatory destination. It is not only an ideology.

Why do you say "Socialist" instead of "communist"?

I'll take this question. Socialism can be understood as a relation between two humans, not necessarily sexual relation. Think about a relation between a physically spastic and a mentally spastic. Money won't be useful in such a relation between two people. Communism is like a generalization like capitalism does (money rules everybody.) In that sense, capitalism too is a communism. But, if you connect communism to socialism, it can also be about a community problem in which money will not be useful. For ex, as I mentioned above, possibility of nuclear reactor accident is a communial social issue that capitalism may not like as there are people who will lose money by closing nuclear reactors. You can't say "I can do whatever I want when I have money or when I have weapon." Actually, money people are not serious problems, real money people know this, they know their limits, they don't use money on such nonhuman nuke technologies. Serious problems are gun-people. Now, with these nukes, maybe, they can see they trapped themselves too. Will they press on buttons of nukes or will they close nukes including nuke reactors? Throw a coin.

It's a collectivist system devised with the collectivist societies/cultures in mind. For Poles, as the free people committed to individualism, it was essentially an alien thing as thus was doomed to fail.

It's as simple as that, the rest are mere details.

I think the number one reason communism fails is isolation. Communist countries have industry, but limited trading partners. A good example of an exception to this is China. Even though they are communist, they have excellent trading partners and are allowed to experience economic growth because of this. Any communist country can experience economic growth if they follow the Chinese model.

Commieism always fails because it is antithetic to human nature. No one like to be controlled.

We will see what the ultimate fate of the red dragon be before we decide.

The dragon is going to have its hands full trying to keep a billion oppressed people down as they gain exposure to the western world. You think the uprisings in the MidEast now are bad, just wait til you see a billion angry Chinamen demanding reform...

Heavy industry, more correctly.


What about fifteen republics of the SU, Warsaw block, Cuba and half of Asia and Africa? It is somewhere around half of the world's population, if not more.


They are not communist in a true sense of this word because they cooperate with bourgeois leeches who suck away from poor proletarians. Somehow these leeches invest in the Chinese economy when the almighty communist regime having everything: manpower, resources is not able to feed its populace. So much for the communism.


Too many unsupported generalizations, PP - visit China and see what this growth is based on.

That's not as much trade as what China has (we are talking volume of trade, not numbers of partners. China latched onto US in this regard, the biggest consumer on earth.) You only have to look at the books to see how successful China's been. In fact, maybe China is deliberately doing as well as possible to prove communism doesn't always have a gloomy outcome.


The dragon already knows about the west. Chinese have not been shielded from America. Many of them have moved there are go back and forth between here in China. There are some disgruntled folks, but the dragon clamps down hard on them. So far, they have remained in control of their huge republic. It is a republic, after all!


They and Cuba are considered the last communist countries on earth. Just because China is succeeding where USSR failed does not make it any less communist.


I base it on trade deficits. It works for the Chinese.

China seems to be doing reasonably well, wouldn't you say? Most of their businesses are state owned.


I don't think it worked that way. In fact, today, even though I may have an MBA from a decent university, most probably the guy whose daddy is richer than mine and is better connected will get a better job. Is that fair?


Hahaha come one Sean, after what has happened over the last three years or so, I believe most western economies are fabricated.


And that is the point. Its not even about the freedom of expression. Its about the idea. Even though, I as a citizen in a democracy, may not change or influence the decision of my government, I have the freedom to talk about it. People in the SU and modern day china don't. That makes the system unsustainable over a period of time. But what I find most laughable, is that despite the fact that I have this freedom, it does me very little good. It's just rhetoric. But somehow the idea is more important than the how it actually works.


Does it really? considering the wealth distribution sucks? Just because a government has a **** load of money, does it make it a successful country?


They actually have to a large extent. I have some chinese friends in my Uni and the stuff they sometimes learn in school about the west is just well...to put it mildly, it's funny.

China is an unusual story. Their huge growth rate and high GDP is nothin surprising though. Considering the size of their population, I'd say it was expected. The China that we have become familiar with is very new China. I think we need to give it time before passing a judgement on it. Once the basics requirements of human beings (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) is fulfilled, then only does a population rise up for the more intangible rights. Till that time comes, and it will take a long time yet, I'd say it would be foolish to judge their success.

Chinese middle class gets bigger everyday. It doesn't just belong to the government. Most people want their government to have a surplus of money instead of being in debt, anyway.

“What we call real estate - the solid ground to build a house on - is the broad foundation on which nearly all the guilt of this world rests”

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Too much fighting over real estate?

Poland was occupied by the the former USSR { COMMUNISTS}. The system in Poland was socialism, Poland stopped being a socialist country and became a capitalist democracy in 1989.

Are you saying that the few jobs that are indeed taken through Nepotism or some other type of favouritism compared to the vast majority of jobs that aren't is equal to Communism where you had no chance whatsoever unless you were in the elite, that is not a fair comparison, I think.


You may have a point. Things have gotton out of control in the West.


Theoretically, this freedom of speech can lead to a new democratically elected party which can change your circumstance. Again something in the S.U. that wasn't possible.



Yep.

Nice contribution Raj_ryder.


I am not sure that is correct:

Ok, in my university (the university of Lodz) I study business management in english. I have one and only one professor who has any experience in the private sector. He worked for 30 years in the private sector and was very successful. His motto to finding a job is networking. Who do you know? and i think he is right. And i think that if you look closely enough you will find that there were people who rose through the ranks from the very bottom even in communism. Elites, no matter in which system always have an advantage. Here is an example of how it works in Poland. From the batch which graduated last year from my university, only two people managed to find jobs. Rest of the looked and couldnt find any. They went off to either finish their masters or to another country. Now the two who did get placed, their parents knew someone in Atlast and another company. It worked out for them. Didn't work out so well for the others.


Yes theoretically it can. And i believe that this is the only reason why the SU collapsed.


Ha ha nah I just wanted to point out that not all state run institutions suck. The chinese institutions are doing reasonably well. But at the same time the government cannot be called successful just because it has a trade surplus.

All of the reasons you have mentioned, in addition to the fact that it was a foreign import and kept in it's place by the Soviet Union. I think that most Poles, as history demonstrates, like their independence and do not like to be constrained by central authority. And unlike their neighbors they tended to have had a healthy disrespect and suspicion of authority.

Actually the vast majority of worthwile jobs are taken through nepotism.There are even laws protecting and legalising nepotism and heritage.The nepotists claim that nepotism is not bad and historically justified!I let them rot in their historical justification.Let's see what they can manage to produce without help.You are in the crisis now.

As for chinese communism is no longer communism since there are private companies and billionaires.The party retained control after showing its hard will to remain in power in the Tien An Men events in 1989.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989