6 ms·

Wow, I wonder what those "eastern block satelites" where it "worked extremely well" are. I was born in an eastern block country and still follow the news there

by hristov 17y ago

Wow, I wonder what those "eastern block satelites" where it "worked extremely well" are. I was born in an eastern block country and still follow the news there, and let me tell you it did not work very well there. In fact it was very similar to a miniature version of what happened in Russia (except for the oil and gas money). Your last sentence is the typical way the Chicago boys excuse themselves after their repeated failures -- just by using racism. "Our theories are sound but the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories" ...

idlewords 17y ago
Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic.
- Zev 17y ago
  Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia, the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they missed while they were protesting to gain freedom. // edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989. If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different. In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.
  - idlewords 17y ago
    And we both forgot the plucky Baltic states, which have done very well indeed!
    - Zev 17y ago
      Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia? They weren't satellite states during the Cold War; they were part of the Soviet Union (or Russia, if you go back to before World War 1). They broke off afterwards. To me, it doesn't make much sense to examine these states the same way you would satellite states. They weren't in the same situation during the Cold War. Although, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia did simply vote themselves out of the Russian Federation, rather then joining it after the Soviet Union collapsed, so, there's a common thread for success, I suppose.
      - idlewords 17y ago
        Why is the distinction important? We're discussing post-Soviet states, including Russia, and how they managed their transition away from communism. Whether or not they were an integral part of the USSR or just a vassal state has no bearing on this, except to the extent that the ex-Soviet republics tended to be even more of an economic shambles. After 1990, everyone was in the same boat, and the countries that were able to push through "shock therapy" reforms prospered, while the rest did not.
        Zev 17y ago
        except to the extent that the ex-Soviet republics tended to be even more of an economic shambles. Exactly. Thats it. The economic position of the state prior to their transition away from communism absolutely has an effect on how they managed after the transition. I'd be willing to guess that while part of the Soviet Union and under a planned economy, whatever the Estonian state was responsible for was closer to being services-based and processing raw materials after they were obtained. Not a lot of agriculture or mining. After 1990, everyone was in the same boat, and the countries that were able to push through "shock therapy" reforms prospered, while the rest did not. But, why did shock therapy fail in the countries that it didn't work in? I highly doubt it was as simple as "Ukraine wanted it while Croatia didn't." Why did Estonia (a former Soviet state) not end up with looting as well?
        idlewords 17y ago
  - ATB 17y ago
    "Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence" The Romanian revolution was extremely violent: over 1,000 people died and over 3,000 were wounded, and the former dictator and his wife were found guilty in a hasty show trial and executed on the spot. Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections. Romania continues to have one of the highest corruption rates in Eastern Europe. But yes, aside from that, it went "remarkably well." This isn't random conspiratorial nonsense, it's well-documented and NPOVed five ways from Sunday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aftermath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aft...
    - Zev 17y ago
      Point. Its late for me and I got slightly jumbled up. You're absolutely right that Romania was the most violent of the revolutions and that I shouldn't have included them in the lacking violence part. I've edited the original post to mention this. Even still, it could have been much worse; the revolution could have failed. And it lead to a stable government that successfully transitioned between parties afterwards. And the Romanian economy is doing fairly well. I'd call that a pretty remarkable success, given how spectacular the failures in Eastern Europe are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections. I haven't really read much about this, Romanian elections being fraudulent. Don't suppose you could recommend a few good news articles or other data (books or papers, perhaps) on the subject (Romania after 1989, not just elections specifically)? The Wikipedia article doesn't have any citation for it either.
      - ATB 17y ago
        Henry F. Carey; East European Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1995, "Irregularities or Rigging: The 1992 Romanian Parliamentary Elections"
        Zev 17y ago
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- hcho 17y ago
  All of which had an industrial base before communism. Poland through Prussia, Hungary and Czech through AustroHungarian Empire. Those that suffered most from the pill were countries with the more agricaltural backgrounds.
- ido 17y ago
  Slovenia went pretty well too. Maybe even better than the examples you listed.
coffeemug 17y ago
Our theories are sound but the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories This isn't racism, this is realism. To use a simple example, America is full of all-you-can-eat buffets, but if you tried to pull a business like this off immediately after the fall of the soviet union, your restaurant would crash and burn. As a novelty, everyone in town would try to "game" it in Russia, until you adjust the written rules to the point where it isn't an all-you-can-eat anymore. I don't even think people would do it because they're particularly hungry, but because they're used to gaming the system every chance they get. Russia has a multigenerational culture of bribes and gaming the system. You can never root that out in a few years - it takes many decades of very carefully constructed policies to root that out. Just look up the history of early Russian immigration waves to the U.S., and see the kind of scams the Russians pulled here that Americans would never consider pulling en masse (adding water to gas in the gas stations, car and health insurance scams, etc.)
- ajuc 17y ago
  I wouldn't blame Russians - this is a simple adaptation that was required to survive in Russia/USSR for so long. People adapt, and Americans would, too. You were just lucky to have no tzars, no WW on your territory, and, the most important point - no communism. Communism degrades social trust, in Poland before the WWII we had very cultured and organised population, people were helping each other, etc. We had regained independence after over 100 years. Even 5 years into the WWII, there were uprising in Warsaw, many young people died for Poland, others were fighting in the England, Italy, on the far east. In the first 10 years of communism everybody that were active as partisant during the war were either in the jail, killed, has escaped from the country, or vere hiding in the forests. Then, communistic gov said if the remains of Armia Krajowa uncover, there will be now more killing. And of course they lied, like many times before and after that. After 45 years of communism people in Poland still don't trust each other. People are still gaming the system, current gov aren't helping, at least they are elected in honest elections. Regaining the trust of the people is work for many years, and without the trust gov can do anything with the people. I think in Russia it has to be even worse - they had communism for much longer, and before that they had just as corrupt system, only less deadly.

by hristov 17y ago

idlewords 17y ago

Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic.

Zev 17y ago
Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia, the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they missed while they were protesting to gain freedom. // edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989. If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different. In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.
- idlewords 17y ago
  And we both forgot the plucky Baltic states, which have done very well indeed!
  - Zev 17y ago
    Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia? They weren't satellite states during the Cold War; they were part of the Soviet Union (or Russia, if you go back to before World War 1). They broke off afterwards. To me, it doesn't make much sense to examine these states the same way you would satellite states. They weren't in the same situation during the Cold War. Although, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia did simply vote themselves out of the Russian Federation, rather then joining it after the Soviet Union collapsed, so, there's a common thread for success, I suppose.
    - idlewords 17y ago
      Why is the distinction important? We're discussing post-Soviet states, including Russia, and how they managed their transition away from communism. Whether or not they were an integral part of the USSR or just a vassal state has no bearing on this, except to the extent that the ex-Soviet republics tended to be even more of an economic shambles. After 1990, everyone was in the same boat, and the countries that were able to push through "shock therapy" reforms prospered, while the rest did not.
      - Zev 17y ago
        except to the extent that the ex-Soviet republics tended to be even more of an economic shambles. Exactly. Thats it. The economic position of the state prior to their transition away from communism absolutely has an effect on how they managed after the transition. I'd be willing to guess that while part of the Soviet Union and under a planned economy, whatever the Estonian state was responsible for was closer to being services-based and processing raw materials after they were obtained. Not a lot of agriculture or mining. After 1990, everyone was in the same boat, and the countries that were able to push through "shock therapy" reforms prospered, while the rest did not. But, why did shock therapy fail in the countries that it didn't work in? I highly doubt it was as simple as "Ukraine wanted it while Croatia didn't." Why did Estonia (a former Soviet state) not end up with looting as well?
        idlewords 17y ago
- ATB 17y ago
  "Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence" The Romanian revolution was extremely violent: over 1,000 people died and over 3,000 were wounded, and the former dictator and his wife were found guilty in a hasty show trial and executed on the spot. Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections. Romania continues to have one of the highest corruption rates in Eastern Europe. But yes, aside from that, it went "remarkably well." This isn't random conspiratorial nonsense, it's well-documented and NPOVed five ways from Sunday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aftermath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aft...
  - Zev 17y ago
    Point. Its late for me and I got slightly jumbled up. You're absolutely right that Romania was the most violent of the revolutions and that I shouldn't have included them in the lacking violence part. I've edited the original post to mention this. Even still, it could have been much worse; the revolution could have failed. And it lead to a stable government that successfully transitioned between parties afterwards. And the Romanian economy is doing fairly well. I'd call that a pretty remarkable success, given how spectacular the failures in Eastern Europe are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections. I haven't really read much about this, Romanian elections being fraudulent. Don't suppose you could recommend a few good news articles or other data (books or papers, perhaps) on the subject (Romania after 1989, not just elections specifically)? The Wikipedia article doesn't have any citation for it either.
    - ATB 17y ago
      Henry F. Carey; East European Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1995, "Irregularities or Rigging: The 1992 Romanian Parliamentary Elections"
      - Zev 17y ago
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
hcho 17y ago
All of which had an industrial base before communism. Poland through Prussia, Hungary and Czech through AustroHungarian Empire. Those that suffered most from the pill were countries with the more agricaltural backgrounds.
ido 17y ago
Slovenia went pretty well too. Maybe even better than the examples you listed.

coffeemug 17y ago

Our theories are sound but the locals are too rotten for our high minded theories This isn't racism, this is realism. To use a simple example, America is full of all-you-can-eat buffets, but if you tried to pull a business like this off immediately after the fall of the soviet union, your restaurant would crash and burn. As a novelty, everyone in town would try to "game" it in Russia, until you adjust the written rules to the point where it isn't an all-you-can-eat anymore. I don't even think people would do it because they're particularly hungry, but because they're used to gaming the system every chance they get. Russia has a multigenerational culture of bribes and gaming the system. You can never root that out in a few years - it takes many decades of very carefully constructed policies to root that out. Just look up the history of early Russian immigration waves to the U.S., and see the kind of scams the Russians pulled here that Americans would never consider pulling en masse (adding water to gas in the gas stations, car and health insurance scams, etc.)

ajuc 17y ago
I wouldn't blame Russians - this is a simple adaptation that was required to survive in Russia/USSR for so long. People adapt, and Americans would, too. You were just lucky to have no tzars, no WW on your territory, and, the most important point - no communism. Communism degrades social trust, in Poland before the WWII we had very cultured and organised population, people were helping each other, etc. We had regained independence after over 100 years. Even 5 years into the WWII, there were uprising in Warsaw, many young people died for Poland, others were fighting in the England, Italy, on the far east. In the first 10 years of communism everybody that were active as partisant during the war were either in the jail, killed, has escaped from the country, or vere hiding in the forests. Then, communistic gov said if the remains of Armia Krajowa uncover, there will be now more killing. And of course they lied, like many times before and after that. After 45 years of communism people in Poland still don't trust each other. People are still gaming the system, current gov aren't helping, at least they are elected in honest elections. Regaining the trust of the people is work for many years, and without the trust gov can do anything with the people. I think in Russia it has to be even worse - they had communism for much longer, and before that they had just as corrupt system, only less deadly.