Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 14:27:47 PDT 2013
Previous message: [lbo-talk] fuck that nonsense
Next message: [lbo-talk] Explosions at the Boston Marathon
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Search LBO-Talk Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
This is pretty much a good summary. Revolution from above by technostructure that wanted more power and privatization. There was also popular dissatisafction due to shortages of consumer goods, which were caused by bad loans - government borrowed from the West in the hope of modernization, but could not successfully enter hard currency markets to sell goods produced by that modernization, so the only way to get hard currency was selling food stuff. And then there were bad political decisions - sudden price hikes which pissed everyone off, arrogance of party apparatchiks.
Another important thing - the trope "fall of communism" does not quite fit the Eastern European reality. The reality was that these were developmental states with strong import substitution policies, protectionism of its own industry, and push for modernization at the expense of consumption (aka austerity measures.) And this more or less worked - most EE countries modernized and eventually entered the European Union. So we should be talking about transformation of the developmental state, a relatively successful one, not a "fall of communism". The latter is nothing but bourgeois propaganda to brainwash grunts so they think that "there is no alternative" to neoliberalism.
Wojtek
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:10 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> The fall of communism was a revolution from above. The appartchiks and
> black marketers wanted what their capitalist confreres openly enjoyed.
>
> The people wanted more democracy, but they didn't have much of a clue
> about real existing capitalism.
>
> There is also the reality that the eastern block and the former USSR were
> class societies, and that there were a significant number of
> educated/professional people who were outraged that they would have to sit
> at the same table with peasants and factory workers.
>
> They expected that the return of capitalism would restore their class
> status and privileges. I spoke to a number of Romanians who told me that if
> they were allowed to emigrate to the US, they would be given a house, a
> car, and a job upon arrival.
>
> Joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> So, are you guys saying that the reason for the fall of communism was a
> housing shorting? If the parties had just invested more in real estate,
> things would have been different?
>
> Something I used to hear when this was widely discussed twenty years ago
> was that people in the ex-bloc countries came, as most people do, to take
> what they had for granted,NAND that it was a big shock to them when they
> discussed that life under capitalism involved constant insecurity, risk of
> loss of job, house, status, etc. especially when a lot of them did lose
> their jobs.
>
> Political freedom is important, worth fighting more. But most people don't
> use it and would not miss it. Many here who bleated most loudly about
> Communist oppression actively promoted oppression, for example, to outlaw
> more than a very narrow range of politics and political thought. They would
> have made good apparatchiki.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:33 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
> >
> > I would like to add a few things, though.
> >
> > First, people lived without fear. I did not realize that until I came to
> > the US, where most people live in a constant fear of crime, losing their
> > job, losing their status etc. This was brand new to me.
> >
> > Second, housing shortage was a big problem and many young people had to
> > live with their parents. This was particularly bad in big cities due to
> a
> > large scale country to city migration. And it was a main generator of
> > anti-Communist sentiments. I once talked to someone from Poland with
> > strong anti-Communist views and when I asked her for reasons - with the
> > caveat not to bullshit me about "oppression" because I used to live there
> > too and know better - her reply was "housing". She and her hubby - both
> > college educated intelligentsia - lived in a single room in Warsaw and
> > thought they deserved better and hated it.
> >
> > Three - most ex-Soviet bloc countries were very provincial and
> ethnocentric
> > despite high levels of literacy. I would not call them exactly "racist"
> > but their view of the world was pretty much Euro-centered, with the white
> > man on the top. The reason many of them hated Communism was that they
> saw
> > their country on a par with Africa rather than Germany. The level of
> > sexism was also very high, and still is.
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
> > -- ------------
> >
> > Perhaps it was different in Poland, but in Romania I remember a lot of
> fear of the secret police. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.
> >
> > Joanna
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is