Talk:Post-communism

message: It is ridiculous that "post-communism" can exist as a concept when communism still exists.  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:15 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
:Please let me know where. Which countries actually practice communism at the moment, rather than calling themselves communist? I don't notice China's leaders, or North Korea's leaders, for example, doing much sharing with the common people. Perhaps you mean Communism, the rule of a so-called "Communist party", something entirely different.
::But doesn't calling it "post-communism" already assume this fallacy? --Daniel C. Boyer
:::In Marxism, the inevitable theoretical stage after socialism is communism. It will occur, Marxists maintain, after socialism "withers away" in some undefined fashion. As historians and journalists well know, no Communist country has ever advanced from socialism to the predicted stage of communism. Nonetheless, dozens of countries ruled by Communist (or Workers) parties are commonly referred to as Communist countries. This by no means implies that they've reached their stated goal: it only describes the regime in power. --Ed Poor
Not really. Consider as an analogy the Stone Age. The bronze-working techniques
that marked the end of the Stone Age happened at different times across the
world. So, some places were "post-Stone Age", without that necessarily implying
that the Stone Age was finished everywhere. It *may* suppose that Communism
is a transitory phenomenon, and so we have to be careful covering it with
NPOV, but that doesn't negate the existence of the concept. - Khendon 13:30 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
The breakup of the Soviet Union heralded the end of Communism. Obviously, Cuba and North Korea are still hard-line Communist, and China still Communism albeit "with Chinese characteristics" as the artful phrase goes. But, thank God, hundreds of millions of people have finally gotten their freedom back from Communist tyranny. So it makes sense to speak of the "post-Communist" era.
Perhaps we need more information on the transition from the Cold War era of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the "stan" countries of Asia, as well as attention to other countries which might become non-Communist in coming years. --Ed Poor
:Speaking as an inhabitant of one of those "post-communist" countries, I know many people around here who, if you were to suggest to them that 15 years ago they have "finally gotten their freedom back from Communist tyranny", would tell you to take your freedom and shove it up your... well, you get the point. To say that capitalism is unpopular in "post-communist" countries would be a vast understatement. And that might have something to do with the collapse of living standards, endemic poverty, swollen crime rate, rampant corruption, and other nice things that have followed the "fall of communism". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:28, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Mihnea Tudoreanu wrote: those paragraphs were removed because "post-communism" is a term defining the current regimes of former communist states, not the situation of western CP's
: That's something the history of this page disagrees with. It has had information about both eastern and western communist parties from the beginning, and I don't see why it's wrong to mention the western ones. Sure, they haven't been in power during the Cold War, but they were nevertheless influenced by the fall of Communism in the east. Also, it's inconsistent to remove this and at the same time keep the link to "Eurocommunism". --Joy [shallot] 11:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of this article is hardly an argument! The article could have easily been wrong from the beginning; the term "post-communism" refers to the current situation in Eastern Europe. However, I agree we should remove the link to Eurocommunism in order to be consistent. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You failed to provide any real reason why it's wrong to mention the western ones. The fall of Communism in the east certainly affected them and the information is correct per se, I am going to restore it again. --Joy [shallot] 11:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  My reason is the fact that they are off-topic. But I have no time to argue such a minor point, so I'll accept this inclusion and just make a few edits to your paragraphs. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  context of western Europe 

message: Standards of living registered a catastrophic fall in the early 1990s, and in most post-communist countries they are still below their 1989 level even today.
::Source?
Is that true? I'm not disputing that... it's just that I haven't heard that before. We really need a source for that and a little more information. Gingermint (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  catastrophic fall of standards of living 

message: The entire article is a description of how the Great Socialist People were ruined into poverty and unemployment by the Evil Imperialist Capitalists.
Is it even possible to de-POV it without deleting the entire farce? --Joffeloff 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: As in, since when has the Communist Party of the Russian Federation been democratic socialist as opposed to ideologically Communist? If the CPRF can be fairly called democratic, socialist or democratic socialists then I shall eat my hat.
This article is badly written, relies on partisan conclusions in its work and has no sources. If someone wants to document the post-USSR world, then it needs to be done properly and not in this format.82.109.85.98 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when? 

message: There is a paper  that argues that output collapse after fall of communism is largely a myth. In short, the problem is that there is lack of trustworthy materials about "real" output of the communist countries. Official communist reports are highly overestimating the economic data simply for ideological and propagandistic purposes. As former Czechoslovak president Vaclav Havel said in his first presidental new year's speech  on 1th january 1990: "For forty years you heard from my predecessors on this day different variations on the same theme: how our country was flourishing [...] and what bright perspectives were unfolding in front of us. I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, would lie to you. Our country is not flourishing." And even standard measures of prosperity like purchasing power parity must be taken in a very specific context. In communism, the products were mostly cheap, but unavailable because the huge demand was not met by adequate supply (pricing mechanism was not working in communism). The amount of goods that an average person could buy for their salary was thus only hypothetical. I do not argue that there was not an economic shock after the huge market system change, but I do argue about the size of actual industrial and living standards downturn, being nowhere near to "catastrophic". I propose to remove parts: "Average standards of living registered a catastrophic fall in the early 1990s" and "Some populations are still poorer today than they were in 1989", unless backed by solid and relevant sources. --Vanes Sirac (cz) 13:18 28 October 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.177.169.200 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The public dept in Poland for one Polish citizen (even for a little baby or an 90-year old man) is now over 9.000 $ (30.000 złotys). The average monthly salary in Poland for a Polish person is 500 $ net (foreigners in Poland earn somewhat more). Is Poland richer than during communism??? I wouldn't say so. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catastrophic fall of standards of living is a myth