6 ms·

This is an interesting comment, because arguably although those countries did know well what they didn't want (Soviet domination, socialism and the one party sy

This is an interesting comment, because arguably although those countries did know well what they didn't want (Soviet domination, socialism and the one party system), it's not at all clear, from the developments in these countries, what they did want, or how they intended to achieve it: - Poland now has an extremely illiberal system of government, without the basic republican separation of powers, secularism, or civic freedoms. - Hungary also is run by an extremely rightwing government which dismisses most foundations of democratic republics using antisemitic conspiracies. If - Romania is run by kleptocrats and considered borderline too corrupt to be a full member of the EU. - Despite the GDR having been integrated very smoothly and quite generously into Western Germany, the exemplar of a stable Western European democracy, around half the voters in the former East support either pro-communist or xenophobic, pro-fascist parties. - Lithuania fails to guarantee basic rights to minority groups. - Bulgaria - both communism and fascism remain extremely popular. - and so on. You also loaded your examples - the countries which did join the EU are generally quite a lot better than the ones which didn't such as Moldova, Ukraine, etc. To be clear - I think that Poland and Polish people have an absolute right to self-determination, and it was never ok for them to be dominated by the Soviet Union, whether by soft power or by violence. However, I think it's fairly clear that if being a modern Western democracy like Denmark was what they wanted, then they failed to achieve it. They have the absolute right to be what they currently are, but they should at least be honest about it. There's also an irony that in the 1970s and 1980s, when progressives in Poland claimed that they wanted Western-Europe style liberal democracy, the communist apologists, both in Poland and in the Soviet Union said that they were actually fighting for domination by the Catholic Church, inequality, exploitation by rich capitalist countries such as Germany, antisemitism, and so on. Well, they got rid of communism, and what did they adopt? A right-wing, institutionally antisemitic, illiberal system, socially controlled by the Church, and trapped in an economic system run by richer countries.

luckylion 6y ago
> I think it's fairly clear that if being a modern Western democracy like Denmark was what they wanted, then they failed to achieve it. In 20 years? How on earth would they have pulled that off? Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, The Netherlands etc stand on hundreds of years of relative wealth and industrialization. Sure, the world wars didn't leave them untouched either, but it's much, much easier to rebuild an industry than to build it in the first place. And then they had the Marshall Plan, 50 years of peace, 30-40 of which were a giant seemingly never-ending economic power boost. Comparing that to a country that only emerged from Soviet occupation in 1990, joined the EU in 2004, and didn't have a long history of self-determination more of less in its current form is like comparing a 12yo to a professional athlete and saying "well, if he wanted to, he could run a 5-minute mile, the other guy can do it as well, clearly he just doesn't want to".
- pringsteen 6y ago
  It seems ridiculous and frankly patronising to claim that the last 30 years of Polish history are an abortive attempt to become Denmark, rather than a sincere and partially successful attempt to become something which is neither Denmark nor socialist Poland.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    My point is: even if they wanted to become Denmark, there's no way that's going to happen in 30 years, and you won't see much progress 30 years, which is an extremely short amount of time.
    - pringsteen 6y ago
      Firstly, were the pro-democracy activists in the Soviet times not aware of this constraint, or did they choose to ignore it? Secondly, the Communist period only lasted 50 years. Before the Second World war Poland was a (post-feudal/capitalist/republican) European country like many others. So why was that 50 years extremely significant, but the following 30 years just barely time to get started with change? You are judging Soviet-era Poland on the society which actually existed, while judging post-Soviet Poland on what they claim they are trying to achieve. That isn't fair. If you judged them both on what they said the goal is, you would have to compare the democratic paradise with the equally utopian and unrealistic communist paradise which was supposed to be just around the corner. Or you could judge them both on the actuality, in which case the present day looks like just a newer iteration of a grim, hopeless and broken society.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > Firstly, were the pro-democracy activists in the Soviet times not aware of this constraint, or did they choose to ignore it? I mean, they came out of a world war where they were shared between Hitler and Stalin and then watched what happened in Prague in '68 when somebody dared to explore non-Soviet-Union ideas. > Before the Second World war Poland was a (post-feudal/capitalist/republican) European country like many others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland Money quote: From 1795 until 1918, no truly independent Polish state existed, although strong Polish resistance movements operated. The opportunity to regain sovereignty only materialized after World War I, when the three partitioning imperial powers were fatally weakened in the wake of war and revolution. That's not anywhere close to Denmark, Germany or The Netherlands. Really. I'm not judging Poland at all. I'm trying to tell you that you shouldn't judge them without considering the circumstances. Their history is completely different, and I'm sure most Poles would be super happy if their history was as wealthy and successful as the Danes'. Instead of running around as Vikings raiding stuff and taking slaves, they suffered enslavement.
misterchicken 6y ago
I agree with that lack of vision is hard on these countries, but I think lack of vision is the status quo of the current political landscape experience. What these countries needed was political and ideological stability, some time to deal with the experienced trauma, and to find the value of basic human rights on their own. However time doesn’t stand still and as a reactionary movement to social media (which increased fragmentation), migrant crisis and Islam hysteria + LBGTQ going mainstream went the “traditions and the past” route. I don’t care if these issues are “real” or “make sense”, but ask around here and these are the 3 main ones everyone will point to when asked why we are where we are. And for the ex soviet block “traditions and the past” route can mean both voting for ex-communist and for the pro-fascist options. On some deeper level they are not that far apart for us (I live in one of the countries you mentioned here). We can see that old democracies are struggling hard due to the same challenges, and the post-soviet block does not have the goodwill of its people to go through it. In general distrust, insecurities, and fear due to Russia is very strong here, people are still in many ways rigid and not very open to new ideas. There is this feeling while being surrounded by western ideas and media that we need a lot of catching up to do, but no one is interested in how someone else is hurt while being hurt themselves. Due to the fact that West is struggling just as hard a lot of people here don’t see the point in following in its footsteps, it just does not seem appealing or logical. That is where the lack of vision of the west fucks ex-soviet block as well. And we try the old “traditions route” because we don’t know anything better.

luckylion 6y ago

> I think it's fairly clear that if being a modern Western democracy like Denmark was what they wanted, then they failed to achieve it. In 20 years? How on earth would they have pulled that off? Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, The Netherlands etc stand on hundreds of years of relative wealth and industrialization. Sure, the world wars didn't leave them untouched either, but it's much, much easier to rebuild an industry than to build it in the first place. And then they had the Marshall Plan, 50 years of peace, 30-40 of which were a giant seemingly never-ending economic power boost. Comparing that to a country that only emerged from Soviet occupation in 1990, joined the EU in 2004, and didn't have a long history of self-determination more of less in its current form is like comparing a 12yo to a professional athlete and saying "well, if he wanted to, he could run a 5-minute mile, the other guy can do it as well, clearly he just doesn't want to".

pringsteen 6y ago
It seems ridiculous and frankly patronising to claim that the last 30 years of Polish history are an abortive attempt to become Denmark, rather than a sincere and partially successful attempt to become something which is neither Denmark nor socialist Poland.
- luckylion 6y ago
  My point is: even if they wanted to become Denmark, there's no way that's going to happen in 30 years, and you won't see much progress 30 years, which is an extremely short amount of time.
  - pringsteen 6y ago
    Firstly, were the pro-democracy activists in the Soviet times not aware of this constraint, or did they choose to ignore it? Secondly, the Communist period only lasted 50 years. Before the Second World war Poland was a (post-feudal/capitalist/republican) European country like many others. So why was that 50 years extremely significant, but the following 30 years just barely time to get started with change? You are judging Soviet-era Poland on the society which actually existed, while judging post-Soviet Poland on what they claim they are trying to achieve. That isn't fair. If you judged them both on what they said the goal is, you would have to compare the democratic paradise with the equally utopian and unrealistic communist paradise which was supposed to be just around the corner. Or you could judge them both on the actuality, in which case the present day looks like just a newer iteration of a grim, hopeless and broken society.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Firstly, were the pro-democracy activists in the Soviet times not aware of this constraint, or did they choose to ignore it? I mean, they came out of a world war where they were shared between Hitler and Stalin and then watched what happened in Prague in '68 when somebody dared to explore non-Soviet-Union ideas. > Before the Second World war Poland was a (post-feudal/capitalist/republican) European country like many others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland Money quote: From 1795 until 1918, no truly independent Polish state existed, although strong Polish resistance movements operated. The opportunity to regain sovereignty only materialized after World War I, when the three partitioning imperial powers were fatally weakened in the wake of war and revolution. That's not anywhere close to Denmark, Germany or The Netherlands. Really. I'm not judging Poland at all. I'm trying to tell you that you shouldn't judge them without considering the circumstances. Their history is completely different, and I'm sure most Poles would be super happy if their history was as wealthy and successful as the Danes'. Instead of running around as Vikings raiding stuff and taking slaves, they suffered enslavement.

misterchicken 6y ago

I agree with that lack of vision is hard on these countries, but I think lack of vision is the status quo of the current political landscape experience. What these countries needed was political and ideological stability, some time to deal with the experienced trauma, and to find the value of basic human rights on their own. However time doesn’t stand still and as a reactionary movement to social media (which increased fragmentation), migrant crisis and Islam hysteria + LBGTQ going mainstream went the “traditions and the past” route. I don’t care if these issues are “real” or “make sense”, but ask around here and these are the 3 main ones everyone will point to when asked why we are where we are. And for the ex soviet block “traditions and the past” route can mean both voting for ex-communist and for the pro-fascist options. On some deeper level they are not that far apart for us (I live in one of the countries you mentioned here). We can see that old democracies are struggling hard due to the same challenges, and the post-soviet block does not have the goodwill of its people to go through it. In general distrust, insecurities, and fear due to Russia is very strong here, people are still in many ways rigid and not very open to new ideas. There is this feeling while being surrounded by western ideas and media that we need a lot of catching up to do, but no one is interested in how someone else is hurt while being hurt themselves. Due to the fact that West is struggling just as hard a lot of people here don’t see the point in following in its footsteps, it just does not seem appealing or logical. That is where the lack of vision of the west fucks ex-soviet block as well. And we try the old “traditions route” because we don’t know anything better.