Jump to content

Talk:Poland/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

What's this?

"Poland used to be a communist country, but democracy was introduced when the country became independent of Russia (the Soviet Union) in 1990." I think this is the most NPOV I ever saw in Wikipedia. WethBold texter you think that communist Poland was really democratic or not, it was a republic, so "democracy was intruduced [...] in 1990" is not objetive. Bold textssqwsfuk dis reeks The other part, "the country became independant from Russia (the Soviet Union)" is even worse. Poland was already an independent country, although it was under the soviet sphere. It is just like saying that latin american countries aren't independant because they are controlled by the USA. Apart from that, it is unprecise: Russia or the Soviet Union? The SU was formed out of 15 states, not only the Russian SSFR.

Dear anon, I guess you meant POV rather than NPOV. Anyway, the matter is more complex than you depict it. According to international law Poland was indeed fully independent. However, one can also say that it was fully dependent of the Soviet Union and even under military occupation. Also, one cannot call a country in which there are no democratic elections for 45 years a democratic country. The concept of democracy was perhaps re-introduced and not introduced (first european country to have its constitution and so on..), but the fact remains that Poland under communist rule was everything but a democracy. Technically it was not a republic either, since the power was held not by the teoretically electible Sejm but by the communist party. For most of its existence the PRL was a communist dictatorship and not a republic. For some time it was a military dictatorship. It was never a republic.
Other than that you're right: it needs clarification and slight correction. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:23, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
Even if it was under military occupation, it was 'legal' as they were Warsaw Pact troops, and Poland -all of this, supposedly- a volunteer member of it. I know, 99,9% of Warsaw Pact troops were Red Army ones, but that is not the point, I think.
Taking out the military occupation, Poland was an internationally-recognized independent State. An encyclopedia, specially one that wants to be neutral like this one, must speak coldly and in precise terms. You may think it wasn't really independant in all the possible aspects, but saying that "it became independant from the SU" is terrible deviated.
About the ellections, the Sejm, as you say, was teoretically electible, so in fact it was a republic. Also it called itself a republic, remember. The fact that only one party was allowed and that politics were controlled exclusively by the CP, can be added as an extra point, but previously deleting that "democracy was introduced".
It indeed needs to be clarified, but speaking of Poland as a democratic republic would be a step too far. Writing only about the theoretical aspect of the politics in Poland would be equally misleading. Just like writing an apologetic article on North Korea in which only the official truth is presented would be equally POV - just from the other side. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that that was the most NPOV I ever saw in Wikipedia ;) The argument that Poland was democratic before 1989 is an obvious nonsense and it is not even worth commenting. The argument that Poland was independent is more substantiated, because it was formally independent. But actually, it was undoubtedly dependent on the Soviet Union. So the statement "it became independent from the SU" is correct. The comparison with Latin America is not fully justified, because the control the SU exercised over Poland was considerably more strict than the control the US exercised over Latin America countries. The statements like "99,9% of Warsaw Pact troops were Red Army ones" show how little the anonymous writer knows about the history of Eastern Europe. Boraczek 06:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Speak about your Poland only, Boraczek, mine has always been in Central Europe, not Eastern :D But seriously, perhaps what needs some explanation is that "independence from the Soviet Union". It needs to be clarified because the way it is now this sentence could be used for description of former Soviet Union republics as well. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
That phrase was indeed awkward, but I'm guessing the original intent may have been that Poland regained democracy it lost in WWII. ... that part sounds better, but the independence thing needed a little more - added "sphere of influence" to try and make that sound less ambiguous. What do you think? Krupo 19:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think now it is a bit better, but the phrase still has to be removed or completely rewritten, as it continues being biased.
Boraczek shouln't bet let to impose his anticommunism as a "neutral" point of view.

What does it have to do with anticommunism? 8-o If someone believes that there was democracy in Poland 1944-1989, they either have no idea what democracy is or have no idea what happened in Poland in that period (or maybe both). If it is the former, I suggest reading R. A. Dahl's On Democracy. If it is the latter, I suggest reading N. Davies's books on the history of Poland. Anyway, it's a matter of ignorance and not a matter of "different point of view". So there's no room for discussion here. As for independence, we can try to rephrase the sentence to avoid misunderstandings. Anyway, it's important to have a notion of the connection between the events - the transition to democracy in Poland was possible because the Soviet Union leaders gave up sustaining communism in Poland. I'm afraid the current phrase is not linguistically correct, but I'll leave it to native speakers to deal with that. Boraczek 20:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear, that might be R. A. Dahl's, N. Davie's and yours point of view on eastern communist governments and how democratic they were. As you may infere, other people may have a completely opposite view, or one in the middle.
Others might think that you are the ignorant, and that what you understand for 'Democracy' is NOT what they understand for it. Democracy comes from the Greek Demos (people) and Cratos (government), and thus means "people's government". Given that, it was normal for communist countries to call themselves "democratic", as they possibly didn't understand it as "capitalist predecided ellections".
Apart from that, there were ellections. Capitalist countries may try to hiden it and even dress it up, but political control occurs everywhere, no only where the U.S. dennounces it. So, I think that a neutral point of view should be like your beliefs or like communist's beliefs, but neutral. That is, not mentioning things that people with other beliefs might be able to discuss.
So we can't write "Earth is shaped like a sphere" because people who believe that Earth is flat might be able to discuss this statement?--rwerp 09:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Briefly, the anonymous writer keeps presenting ignorance or propaganda as "a different point of view", presenting facts as "my beliefs" and showing his/her lack of orientation in political science and history. So as to clearly express my standpoint: if someone believes that Poland is 10 times bigger than the US, it is not a reason to remove the information about the area of Poland; analogously, if someone believes that communist Poland was democratic, it is not a reason to remove the information about the democratic transition in Poland. Boraczek 22:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please, don't make stupid comparisons, it only reflects that you haven't uderstood me, or directly don't want to understand me. You cannot say your beliefs aren't your beliefs, and instead presenting themselves as facts. That is the result of a closed mind.
I am not saying that Poland was democratic in the way you understand the word, but that what you understand for democratic are not all its possible and valid interpretations. Anyway, saying that democracy was introduced in 1990 continues being POV,as the world "introduced" gives certain connotations. You could equally say "free ellections were held in 1990", and it is NPOV, as it just reflects reality, without giving place for misunderstandings or offences.
About the other part, the one about the independance from the Soviet Union, that is completely erroneous. You can say that free ellections were only possible once the Soviet Union stopped supporting communist governments in it's neighbour states, which is an explicit phrase that also don't lets place for confussion or politial deviations.
If by elections we understand "the society choses its representatives in a popular vote" then no, there were no elections in Poland after WWII. These could be called show elections at best since both the candidates and the results were pre-defined by the party, without the society having any influence over it whatsoever. In this very case it's not about two contracting POVs, it's the case of truth vs. lie. One cannot say that there were free elections in Poland prior to 1990. So, if there were no free elections - how come the country is a democracy to you? It might've called itself a democracy, but it doesn't mean that it truly was a democracy.
I'd agree on some softened wording though, something along the lines of "The first free ellections in Polish post-war history were held in 1990". How about that? As to the relations with USSR: I'm afraid that we'd have to be more elaborate here. There's no chance to describe the level of dependence by using one frase only. Any proposals? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:08, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

what you understand for democratic are not all its possible and valid interpretations Of course, my personal view on democracy is not the only possible interpretation. There are different ways of understanding democracy. Barry Holden classified all theoretical approaches describing democracy by distinguishing five types. I'm listing them below, with names of some prominent representants:

  1. radical democratic theory (ancient Greeks, Rousseau)
  2. new radical democratic theory (Bachrach, Baratz, Marcuse)
  3. pluralist democratic theory (Dahl)
  4. elitist democratic theory (Schumpeter)
  5. liberal-democratic theory (Locke, Tocqueville, Mill)

The point is that communist states were not democratic in any possible sense of the word "democratic", not democratic according to any formulated theory of democracy, not democratic even according to the communist way of defining "people's democracy". And this is a fact, not a belief. If we refrain from using the word "democracy" just beacuse the communist propaganda used it to describe communist states so, we only loose a useful term. This is Wikipedia, not an official Soviet Union site, so let's use the word "democracy" in its proper sense. Boraczek 14:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like you say, I believed this was Wikipedia, not an official CIA site.
Listen, just dont shut your eyes, this is not neutral: "Poland used to be a communist state, but democracy was restored in 1990". It is making a parallelism between communism (the ideology, no the soviet interpetation) and absence of democracy, don't you think it is POV?
A communist state is by definition a state monopolized by a communist party, hence not a democratic state. Boraczek 00:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Was Nazi Germany "socialist" because NSDAP was by name a "socialist" party? Space Cadet 21:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is not the issue right now, but anyway what you say is wrong. It defined itself as "nationalsocialist", which contains "socialist" in its name but is a composite world meaning someting practically opposed to socialism.
Of course, Space Cadet is right. "National socialist" contains "socialist", so NSDAP called themselves "socialist". This is obvious. So as not to see "socialist" in "national socialist", one has to have their eyes very shut. The anonymous writer's eyes seem indeed very shut, because he/she doesn't see that he/she runs counter his/her own argument, the one that communists considered communist states democratic. It's enough to change some names and what we get is: it defined itself as "people's democracy", which contains "democracy" in its name but is a composite world meaning someting practically opposed to democracy. Boraczek 00:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'll stop this flame as you evidently have an extremely closed mind and don't even try to *think* what I'm saying. Communist states may have been more democratic that well known western 'democracies', with the unique difference that political control was public instead of secret and managed by corporations.
I do think about what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is wrong. If "open mind" means "to be convinced by any argument, no matter what it says", then I definitely prefer to have a "closed mind". Boraczek 09:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Nazionalsozialistische" is a composite word only in German, not in English. Socialism in Nazi Germany was as "socialist" as democracy in Communist Poland "democratic". Do you actually know what the so called "elections" looked like? Did you know that untouched ballot was a valid vote for the selctions made by the "Front of Nation's Unity"? Anybody who did not turn in his ballot right after receiving it, got a mark next to his name. In stalinist times the mark meant Siberia, prison or death. In more recent times it meant your kids wouldn't get to college, you wouldn't ever get a raise or promotion anywhere you work and you wouldn't get a passport even to go to lousy Bulgaria. Space Cadet 00:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And now you are mixing Poland with Stalin's USSR. 'Nazionalsozialistische' as a composite world doesn't means socialism, and it is clear that Hitler hated socialism.
Space Cadet was not talking about the USSR, but rather about Poland in the Stalinist period. "People's democracy" as a composite word doesn't mean "democracy" and it is clear that Stalin hated democracy. Boraczek 09:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Uh-huh, I think the communist states may have been more democratic that well known western 'democracies remark explains a bit. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:38, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
We, who lived in a communist state and later in a democratic state, know that this statement is a complete nonsense. But people who didn't experience communism themselves are often blind to our experience and ignore the facts we know. This is really terrifying. Boraczek 10:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, how about the following wording of the first paragraph: Poland used to be a communist state and a satellite state of the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1989. After it was free of Soviet domination, democracy was established and the first free elections after the World War II were held in 1990.? It seems well-balanced to me. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:55, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I think it is OK, but I would delete "democracy was established and". It is obvious that free ellections are what you are calling democracy, so let it implicit instead of slightly biased ;).
It is not biased at all. But OK, the information about establishing democracy is not necessary. Boraczek 18:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Democracy

It is obvious that free ellections are what you are calling democracy Not exactly. Definitions may vary in details, but generally in political science a modern democratic system is defined as a political system which is distinguished by the presence of all the following institutions:

  1. Elected officials.
  2. Free and just elections.
  3. Universal suffrage.
  4. Right to run for office.
  5. Freedom of expression.
  6. Alternative information sources.
  7. Freedom of association.

Wikipedia's definition of democracy is consistent with this. This is how Poland before 1989 can be characterized:

  1. Elected officials. +
  2. Free and just elections. -
  3. Universal suffrage. +
  4. Right to run for office. -
  5. Freedom of expression. -
  6. Alternative information sources. -
  7. Freedom of association. -

And this is how Poland after 1990 can be characterized:

  1. Elected officials. +
  2. Free and just elections. +
  3. Universal suffrage. +
  4. Right to run for office. +
  5. Freedom of expression. +
  6. Alternative information sources. +
  7. Freedom of association. +

Now you can see why from the point of view of political science what happened in Poland in 1989-1990 was a transition from an autocratic regime to a democratic regime. Boraczek 17:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am not a native English speaker so I don't know the word exactly, but the definition you are giving is that of an "Estado de derecho" (Rigth State?), democracy just means that the people rule themselves. If you call that a "modern democratic system", it is clear that Poland before 1989 didn't have it, but if you take only the world democracy and its direct meaning, many people may be able to discuss it, even if you are fully convinced that Poland wasn't democratic.

That was the most widespread scientific definition of a modern democratic system. Not the only one. The Marxist definition is different. Anyway, I lived under a relatively mild communist regime, now I live under a democratic regime and I can tell you this: there is a HUGE difference in freedom, human rights, political rights and people's control over government between the two. If democracy means that people rule themselves, then communist state is a clear contradiction of democracy. Boraczek 22:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's funny that we who experienced both (democracy and lack of it) and speak from experience are considered "closed minded", while some "head in the clouds" reddish idealist, who just read Marx's Communist Manifesto two weeks ago, while smoking something, calls himself "open minded" and is demanding equal recognition for his fantasies. Space Cadet 23:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What is funny is how much you were afected by the communist regime, or by post-communist propaganda, I don't know. Evidently it was bad for your mind, and it also led you to political discrmination, like "reddish".
Any case, the one living in fantasies are you, thinking you live in a free, "modern democratic" country when now it only changed being a Soviet satellite for being an American one.
I've lived in USA for a long time now, so I have experienced quite a lot. Let me take something back: it's not you who are "reddish" but things you say, like the one about "communism MAYBE being more democratic than other democracies. Another thing: isn't it time you came out from the shadow of anonymity, and declare a little bit about yourself, so we can put your credentials (ethnic and political background, age, experience, etc.)together with your theoretical speculations? Space Cadet 03:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, the very word "democracy" has various meanings, ranging from the most common definition of what you call a "law democracy" to anarchist theories of a true freedom. However, the PRoP (People's Republic of Poland) does not fulfill any of the definitions I know. Not even the ones described by the classics of communism.
Also, I don't really feel that my country is currently a puppet of anyone. All decisions are made here at home and not in Moscow/Washington, the rulers are elected in free elections and not by the Kremlin/White House, both the internal and foreign affairs are truly independent (which at times is considered by some - among them Jacques Chirac - a step too far) and so on.
Finally, I'd also like to invite you to join Wikipedia and register an account. It's always more pleasant to discuss with someone of bone and flesh and not with some anonymous IP. Also, if you have troubles with your English siempre puedes contactarme en castellano. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:27, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding universal sufferage - can prisoners vote in Poland? How about foreign workers? Never mind children. In the US the answer is, with exceptions - no, no and no. In fact in the US, 1 in 5 adults in California is not able to vote. Ruy Lopez 05:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In Poland the answer is - yes, it depends and no. Prisoners can vote. Foreign workers can vote in Polish elections if they are Polish citizens. If they are not, they don't have rights (e.g. right to vote) and duties (e.g. military service) of Polish citizens, but they are allowed to vote in elections of the countries they come from. It should be noted that Poland, unlike the US, is not an immigrant country and foreign workers constitute a small part of the population (probably less than 1%, but I didn't check latest data). Children can't vote, but it is not relevant, because the term "universal suffrage" basically means that all adults can vote (except for those who were individually and legally excluded for relevant reasons, e.g. mentally ill). Boraczek 16:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

satellite state

This article says "Poland used to be an eastern bloc state and a satellite state of the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1989." I have a problem with "satellite state of the Soviet Union". I have a problem with it, because I feel English Wikipedia is very biased towards certain topics (the USA, capitalism, and so on) and is tilted against certain topics (socialism, communism, enemies of the USA - past, present and future). A very good case could be made for Italy being called a satellite state of the USA from 1945 until 1989 (and perhaps past that). Similar things could be said about France or West Germany, but especially Italy. Or South Vietnam. Italy is not called a satellite state of the US in its article though. Thus the incongruousness of it - the US is described as Italy's pal, protecting it from the Warsaw Pact, as well as helping its pal get the right people elected in its internal 1948 elections. On the other hand, Poland and other Warsaw Pact countries are "satellite states" of the USSR. Now either the Italy page is POV, or the Poland page is POV (usually people always tell me the other page is the one that is POV). Anyhow, "satellite state of the Soviet Union" is leaning towards the idea that the Polish government were just puppets of the Kremlin. Other things could be said - that the Polish government was independent, that the Polish government was somewhat subordinate to the Warsaw Pact and so forth. Thus, together the Italy and Poland Wikipedia articles propagate a grand lie: that Poland was a complete slave and puppet to the USSR, while Italy was a free country which joined NATO to protect itself from the evil Warsaw Pact. I think its unfair that Eastern European countries are all presented as slaves of the USSR, while Western European countries are all free countries where they join NATO to protect themselves from the evil Warsaw Pact. Discussion of American influence on Western European countries, American military bases and so forth is near nil. Much of what is there, I myself put there and somehow it did not get reverted. It's clear that putting "Italy was a satellite state of the United States" would be considered POV on that page, so using the same guide, it would seem saying Poland was a satellite state of the USSR is POV on this page. Otherwise, everything here basically jibes with US Cold War propaganda, which a large minority even in the US never really bought into anyway. I'm open to any suggestions, compromises and so forth. But using Western European countries as a guide for POV and NPOV, putting that Poland was a satellite state of the USSR in that light is not NPOV. Ruy Lopez 06:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, basically Poland was a satelite state. Firstly, in Poland was a substantial Soviet Army (over 40000 soldiers) placed in many places through the country. Secondly, no First Secretary of PZPR (basically the most important person in the country), would be selected without blessing from Moscow. Thirdly, in Polish constitution was a statement about friendship with the Soviet Union. Forthly, Poland was (and still is) depedend on Eastern Oil and Gas. Fifthly, any bad statement in press, book etc. about USSR was censored. Also let me quote some jokes from that period: Polish First Secretary of PZPR and American Presidant are discussing who is more important. American President says: "After me is only God". Polish First Secretary says "After me is only God too, but after Bug is 40 divisions." (In Polish the word for God (Bóg), and for river Bug sounds the same). Or another joke: "John is asked by his teacher: "What your father is doing for a living?". John answers "He is tourist guide." Teacher says: "But your father is First Secretary! Why did you say that he is tourist guide?". John answer: "Because he travels very often to Moscow for directions". (In Polish he was a clockmaker because in Polish clocks have directions not hands). As you can see there is some difference between Poland and Italy. Przepla 18:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree totally. The communist Poland was created by Stalin in 1945 by taking the frame of the pre-war country and filling it with Polish communists who spent their whole adult lifes in the Soviet Union under the supervision of Soviet advisors. The first after-war Polish President, Boleslaw Bierut, spent more time in Moscow than he did in Poland. The Communists began with creating secret police and falsifying the elections to gain power. They fought anti-communist guerillas (members of the former Land's Army, loyal to the Polish government in exile in London) using militia, security forces and Soviet NKVD batallions. Newspapers were censored. People were put into prisons and tortured for opposing the regime in any way. Poland always supported the Soviet Union on the international arena and rejected the Marshall Plan after the war.
I'm pretty sure that most of the Polish people now would agree that Poland was a satellite country of the Soviet Union, even if its leaders sometimes managed to create a different impression in the West. All the communist countries in Eastern Europe were Soviet puppets, except Yugoslavia and Albania (and many countries outside Europe, which were also pretty independent - China, Mongolia, Vietnam).
You might consider though, whether Japan was not an American satellite for some decades. The same goes with Western Germany. You'd have to analyze how much freedom did those countries have after the war regarding foreign and domestic policy. They weren't called satellites in the West, because, obviously, history is written by the victors... Siskin1 20:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with what both Przepla and Siskin1 said. In Poland all important decisions had to be either consulted with Moscow or simply came directly from Moscow. It started with Uncle Jojo preparing the borders, chosing the first "provisional government" ad even chosing the names for its members (sic! not only the members, but also their names - see Rola-Żymierski for instance) and continued until the very end. With time the local government gained some "independence", but the Russian influence was still the most important. And if something was left to the authorities in Warsaw, there was still a Red Army standing by and organising manouevres of the Warsaw Pact in Poland - just in case. The situation of Poland in the 1980's could be compared to that of Finland in the 1960's. The direct domination with time turned into some form of finlandisation, but to a much larger extent. In fact the Polish society had little or nothing to do with both internal and external affairs of their state, all was decided either by the Kremlin, or by its men here at home. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I've read what has been said. I live in the US, and since this Wikipedia is in English I feel that the Cold War POV in general is too pro-US (and pro-UK) since most of the users come from these places, and portrays the US and UK as always right, and the US/UK enemies as always wrong (communists worldwide during the Cold War, and now Arab nationalists during the so-called War on Terrorism). I do not have a particular bone to pick about Poland and the USSR, I just feel US influence in Western Europe is underplayed and shown as magnanimous, while the USSR influence in eastern Europe is overplayed and portrayed as evil. "Firstly, in Poland was a substantial Soviet Army (over 40000 soldiers) placed in many places through the country." OK, but the US had bases in Italy and West Germany (and still does). Italy is not called a satellite state of the US though. "Fourthly, Poland was (and still is) depedend on Eastern Oil and Gas." And Western Europe was even more dependent on the Marshall Plan. "The communist Poland was created by Stalin in 1945 by taking the frame of the pre-war country and filling it with Polish communists who spent their whole adult lifes in the Soviet Union under the supervision of Soviet advisors. " Charles De Gaulle, anyone? "The Communists began with creating secret police and falsifying the elections to gain power." Just as in Italy. In fact, the West German secret police from 1945 on were ex-Gestapo, ex-SS like Klaus Barbie. "You might consider though, whether Japan was not an American satellite for some decades. The same goes with Western Germany. You'd have to analyze how much freedom did those countries have after the war regarding foreign and domestic policy. They weren't called satellites in the West, because, obviously, history is written by the victors..." Thank you, this is what I mean. I feel when the US and USSR did the same thing, the USSR is condemned and the US is not. "With time the local government gained some 'independence', but the Russian influence was still the most important. And if something was left to the authorities in Warsaw, there was still a Red Army standing by and organising manouevres of the Warsaw Pact in Poland - just in case." - in Italy, only one party ruled for 40 years - the Christian Democrats. The US and NATO had plans to invade Italy if it went communist, and there was massive interference in Italy's internal affairs throughout its history to prevent this. Many of the qualities that lead to Poland being called a satellite state of the USSR were in Italy, West Germany and France for the US, yet on Wikipedia they're not called satellite states, in fact the US was their pal, protecting them from the Warsaw Pact (the idea that Italy's workers wanted a communist government is almost beyond American comprehension). Anyhow, I guess I'll leave the phrase as be. Perhaps I'll edit the pages pertaining to Italy instead, showing American influence on that country (or France, or West Germany). Ruy Lopez 22:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Thus, together the Italy and Poland Wikipedia articles propagate a grand lie: that Poland was a complete slave and puppet to the USSR, while Italy was a free country which joined NATO to protect itself from the evil Warsaw Pact. Saying that Poland was a complete slave and puppet to the USSR would be exaggerated. Poland, especially after 1956, had moderate independence in the realm of internal affairs and very limited independence in the realm of foreign affairs. This is exactly what the notion of "satellite state" implies - that the state is independent to some extent, so it's a separate state, but at the same subject to hegemony. Just like the Moon is not a part of the Earth, but it is captured by its force of gravity and has to follow the Earth. Italy enjoyed much greater independence than Poland after 1956. This is a difference in degree which causes a difference in quality and for this reason it is correct to say that Poland was a satellite state and Italy was not. It's true that the US and NATO had plans to invade Italy if it went communist. Nonetheless, the US did not invade Italy in the seventies when communists won elections in some provinces and when communist Pietro Ingrao became the president of Camera dei Deputati. The Soviet Union did invade Czechoslovakia when the liberal wing of Czechoslovakian communists became stronger. This makes a difference. Besides, we should remmeber that Italy was a democratic country. The results of elections were not falsified. If Italy didn't go communist, it is because communists didn't win elections, because the majority of people didn't want Italy to be ruled by communists. In Poland, communists didn't win elections either. But autocratic communist government was installed and maintained for 40 years by the Soviet Union. So, while the US tried to prevent Italy from becoming communist, but did not impose an autocratic system on Italians, the SU imposed an autocratic system on Poland despite the will of Poles. Maybe you could show that the US did the same thing as the SU, Ruy, but you choose wrong examples. The US supported some autocratic governments in Latin America and this may be a good argument. But Poland and Italy were in a quite different situation and the comparison between these two countries is not justified. The American political influence in Italy should not make us overlook a considerable difference in degree of dependence. Boraczek 16:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Communist state

Poland used to be an eastern bloc state and a satellite state of the Soviet Union IMO this is in fact repeating the same information 2 times. What is relevant here is the form of government and the term communist state describes that form. Ruy Lopez changed "communist state" to "socialist state". It is correct to say that Poland was a socialist state, but the term "socialist state" is less precise and describes the economical system of Poland rather than the political system. The economical system of Poland was socialism, not communism in the Marxian sense, of course. I'm restoring "communist state", but I am open to other suggestions. Boraczek 16:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is important to differentiate between economic system and political system. We have yet to finish working on all relevant definitions (not only on Wiki, but in various scienctific publications as well). The terms communism and socialism have several meanings and excluding definitions, and unless we define what we understand by them we may never find a common ground.
Until we raech a satisfactory conclusion on the relevant list pages, I think it is safe to use several adjectives - system catogorizations - to describe systems we are talking about. As far as economy system is concerned, Peopel's Republic of Poland could be described as: left-wing, planned, socialist system, in theory aspiring to communism. The political system was totalitarian, oligarchic, communist state, mostly based on rational-legal authority with diminishing elements of stalinist charismatic authority. Would you agree with such a definition? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the political system was totalitarian. I concur with many scholars who think that the usage of the term "totalitarianism" should be restricted to such forms as Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. IMHO what we had in Poland was a relatively mild autocratic regime. Boraczek 17:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem here is that autocracy is defines as follows: Autocracy is a form of government where unlimited power is held by a single individual. Since this is not the case with Poland, which was ruled by oligarchical communist party, I dont think we can call it autocratic regime. On the other hand, definitions from totalitarianism and police state seem much more relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I don't agree with the quoted definition of autocracy. To me, like to Joseph Schumpeter and Giovanni Sartori, the basic dychotomy is democracy/autocracy and modern regimes can be divided into two categories: democratic and autocratic regimes. Even if Norberto Bobbio was right when he wrote: Today the use of the term 'dictatorship' is so widespread for governments which are not democracies and which have arisen by suppressing preceding democracies that the technically more correct term 'autocracy' has been relegated to manuals of public law. If 'autocracy' raises controversies, how about 'autoritharian'? Boraczek 10:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am fine with a lot of things, I just dislike certain phrases like communist state since it is an oxymoron, communism is stateless. Communist Party run state would be OK I guess. Or Maxrist-Leninst government, which I put in. I am very open to suggestions as well, I just dislike communist next to state, government and whatnot since the only connection to communism was it being run by a communist party. Ruy Lopez 19:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is my favourite explanation for what communist state is: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If Ruy dislikes 'communist state', I won't insist on using this term. I don't have any strong objections to 'Marxist-Leninist government', I only suspect that the phrase "Poland used to be a L.-M. government" does not sound very good in English, so maybe we should change the wording. I have one more idea - how about 'single-party state'? This is quite specific. Maybe "single-party state with a L.-M. government" or something like this? Boraczek 10:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whatever you want, as long as its not the word communist followed by anything other than the word party. Single party state is fine. Ruy Lopez 10:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this part should be removed. Almost all of the links are to Polish-language sites and it is hardly beneficial to anyone without knowledge of Polish. Frequently, the links are poluted with spam. Poszwa 01:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Well...if they're Polish web portals they're probably going to be in Polski. Anyway, plenty of Polish people use Wikipedia. Maybe they should be transferred to the Polish version of the article, and replaced here with a link to the Polish version. Any suggestions? Vanderdecken 17:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

single-party state

Saying that between 1945 and 1989 was single-party state is just not true. It was tri-party system (pl:PZPR, pl:SD, pl:ZSL) in which PZPR had the main power. Three is certinly not one. There were even more "satellite" parties (pl:PAX). Practically, it didn't matter since PZPR had guaranteed majority in Sejm. Moreover, Central Comittee of PZPR was de facto ruling the country regardless of constitutional institutions. On paper, pre-1989 Poland was a democratic country. In practice, it was an oligarchy ruled by the Central Comittee of PZPR.Poszwa 01:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changed some name stuff

I changed some stuff under the name header. Pole and Polanie were mentioned mseveral times all around one paragraph, I trie to clump all of it together to make it more fluent... I hope. Revert if you don't like.

Economy

The economy section is partially plagiarised from the CIA factbook description of the polish economy. Don't know if that matters or anything. It can be found here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html#Econ

Tnx. We will definetly rewrite it ASAP. Copyvios are not allowed on Wiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The Factbook is in the public domain. -- Naive cynic 07:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poland/Archive_2&oldid=749840913"