Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Post-communism
View on WikipediaPost-communism is the period of political and economic transformation or transition in post-Soviet states and other formerly communist states located in Central-Eastern Europe and parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, in which new governments aimed to create free market-oriented capitalist economies. In 1989–1992, communist party governance collapsed in most communist party-governed states. After severe hardships communist parties retained control in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. SFR Yugoslavia began to disintegrate, which plunged the country into a long complex series of wars between ethnic groups and nation-states. Soviet-oriented communist movements collapsed in countries where they were not in control.[1][2]
Politics
[edit]The policies of most communist parties in both the Eastern and Western Blocs had been governed by the example of the Soviet Union. In most countries in the Eastern Bloc, following the Revolutions of 1989 and the fall of communist-led governments that marked the end of the Cold War, the communist parties split in two factions: a reformist social democratic party and a new less reformist-oriented communist party. The newly created social democratic parties were generally larger and more powerful than the remaining communist parties—only in Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, and Tajikistan the communist parties remained a significant force.[3][4]
In the Western Bloc, many of the self-styled communist parties reacted by changing their policies to a social democratic and democratic socialist course. In countries such as Japan, Italy and reunited Germany, post-communism is marked by the increased influence of their existing social democrats. The anti-Soviet communist parties in the Western Bloc (e.g. the Trotskyist parties) who felt that the dissolution of the Soviet Union vindicated their views and predictions did not particularly prosper from it—in fact, some became less radical as well.
Economy
[edit]Several communist states had undergone economic reforms from a command economy towards a more market-oriented economy in the 1980s, notably Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. The post-communist economic transition was much more abrupt and aimed at creating fully capitalist economies.[5]
All the countries concerned have abandoned the traditional tools of communist economic control and moved more or less successfully toward free-market systems.[6] Although some, such as Charles Paul Lewis, stress the beneficial effect of multinational investment, the reforms also had important negative consequences that are still unfolding. Average standards of living registered a catastrophic fall in the early 1990s in many parts of the former Comecon—most notably in the former Soviet Union—and began to rise again only toward the end of the decade. Some populations are still considerably worse off today than they were in 1989 (e.g. Moldova, and Serbia). Others have bounced back considerably beyond that threshold (e.g. the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and some such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (Baltic Tiger), and Slovakia underwent an economic boom, although all have suffered from the Great Recession, except for Poland, which was one of two countries (the other was Albania) in Europe maintained growth despite the Great Recession.
Armenia's economy, like that of other former states of Soviet Union, suffered from the consequences of a centrally-planned economy and the collapse of former Soviet trade patterns. Another important aspect for difficulty of standing up after the collapse is that the investment and funding that was coming to Armenian industry from Soviet Union has been gone, leaving only a few large enterprises in operation. Furthermore, the aftereffects of the 1988 Armenian earthquake were still being felt. Despite the fact that a cease-fire has been in place since 1994, the dispute with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh has not been resolved. Since Armenia was heavily dependent on outside supplies of energy and most raw materials at that time, the resulting closure of both the Azerbaijani and Turkish borders has devastated the economy. During 1992–1993, the GDP had dropped around 60% from its peak in 1989. Few years after adoption of national currency, the dram in 1993, it experienced hyperinflation.[7]
As of 2021, most post-communist countries in Europe are generally seen to have mixed economies, although some such as Estonia, Romania, and Slovakia often adopt more traditionally free-market policies, such as flat tax rates, than does the Western Bloc. A fundamental challenge in post-communist economies is that institutional pressures that reflect the logic of capitalism and democracy are exerted on organizations, including business firms and government agencies, that were created under communism and to this day are run by managers socialized in that context, resulting in a great deal of continuing tension in organizations in post-communist states.[8]
See also
[edit]- Chinese economic reform
- Communist nostalgia
- Dissolution of the Soviet Union
- Eurocommunism
- Fall of communism in Albania
- History of communism#Contemporary communism (1993–present)
- List of communist parties with national parliamentary representation
- Neoauthoritarianism (China)
- Postsocialism
- Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union
- Revolutions of 1989
- World communism
References
[edit]- ^ David Priestland, The Red Flag: A History of Communism (Grove, 2009) pp 346–353.
- ^ Robert Service, Comrades: A World History of Communism (2007) pp. 459–460,
- ^ David Ost, "The politics of interest in post-communist East Europe." Theory and Society 22.4 (1993): 453-485. online Archived 2021-05-15 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Gregory Gleason, Markets and politics in Central Asia (Routledge, 2003).
- ^ Charles King, "Post-Postcommunism: Transition, Comparison, and the End of" Eastern Europe"." World Politics (2000): 143-172. online[dead link]
- ^ A summary of the process containing both economic analysis and anecdotal case studies can be found in Charles Paul Lewis's How the East Was Won (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
- ^ Curtis, Glenn (1995). Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia : country studies. Washington D.C.: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. pp. 1–77. ISBN 0844408484.
- ^ Tilcsik, A. (2010). "From ritual to reality: Demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency". Academy of Management Journal. 53(6). 1474–1498. Abstract.
Further reading
[edit]- Bown, Archie. The Rise and Fall of Communism (2009)
- Fürst, Juliane, Silvio Pons and Mark Selden, eds. The Cambridge History of Communism (Volume 3): Endgames?.Late Communism in Global Perspective, 1968 to the Present (2017) excerpt
- Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000 (2nd ed. 2008) excerpt
- Pons, Silvio, and Robert Service, eds. A Dictionary of 20th-Century Communism (2010).
- Priestland, David. The Red Flag: A History of Communism (Grove, 2009).
- Service, Robert. Comrades: A World History of Communism (2007).
External links
[edit]- "Parties and Elections in Europe"
- Daniel Nelson (July/August 2000). "Dangerous Assumptions"[permanent dead link] in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
- "Transitions Online". News coverage of post-communist Europe and Central Asia
- "Communism: A Love Affair?: Russians Nostalgic for Soviet Social Services" by The Global Post.
- Gerald M. Easter (2012). "Capital, Coercion, and Post-Communist States". Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0801-4782-46.
Post-communism
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Historical Origins
Conceptual Definition
Post-communism refers to the political, economic, and social transitions in countries of the former Soviet bloc and allied states following the overthrow or abdication of communist governments between 1989 and 1991, marking the end of the Cold War bipolar order and the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991.[10] This concept captures the shift from state-socialist systems characterized by one-party rule, central economic planning, and suppression of private enterprise to attempts at establishing multi-party democracies, market economies, and civil societies integrated with Western institutions.[11] The term applies to approximately 27 states in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Caucasus, Central Asia, and Mongolia, where communism's collapse exposed shared institutional weaknesses, including over-centralized bureaucracies and underdeveloped private sectors.[11] At its core, post-communism involves path-dependent dynamics where communist legacies—such as atomized social structures, nomenklatura privileges, and ideological indoctrination—interact with reform strategies to produce divergent outcomes, ranging from democratic consolidation in East-Central Europe (e.g., Poland's GDP per capita rising from $1,700 in 1990 to $18,000 by 2023 in constant dollars) to authoritarian persistence in Central Asia.[11] Unlike transitions in Southern Europe or Latin America, which often featured established capitalist classes or prior democratic experiences, post-communist reforms required simultaneous deinstitutionalization of socialism and institution-building, often leading to hybrid regimes with incomplete rule of law.[11] Empirical studies highlight how pre-1989 factors, like proximity to Western Europe and ethnic homogeneity, correlated with faster liberalization, as evidenced by the 2004 EU enlargement of eight former communist states.[11] Critically, post-communism as a category underscores causal realism in explaining variability: initial conditions of state socialism imposed unique constraints, such as the need to reprivatize assets controlled by party elites, fostering corruption levels averaging 4.5 on Transparency International's 2023 index for the region versus 2.5 globally.[11] Yet, scholars debate its enduring validity, arguing that after three decades, trajectories have diverged sufficiently—e.g., Estonia's digital governance versus Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine—to render the label more temporal than analytically distinct, though legacies like weakened trust in institutions persist across cases.[11] This framework prioritizes empirical variation over teleological assumptions of inevitable Western convergence.[10]Key Events Leading to the End of Communism
The Soviet Union's economic stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s, characterized by slowing growth rates from inefficiencies in the command economy, limited technological innovation, and misallocation of resources, eroded the regime's capacity to sustain its population and military commitments.[12] By the early 1980s, annual GDP growth had declined to around 2 percent, compared to over 5 percent in the 1960s, with increasing reliance on oil exports that proved vulnerable to global price drops.[13] This period, often termed the "Era of Stagnation," highlighted systemic failures in central planning, including overemphasis on heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods and services, fostering widespread shortages and disillusionment.[14] In Poland, the emergence of the Solidarity trade union on August 31, 1980, following strikes at the Gdańsk Shipyard, marked the first independent labor organization in the Soviet bloc, uniting workers and intellectuals against communist rule.[15] By September 1981, Solidarity had grown to 10 million members, demanding free elections and economic reforms, which exposed the Polish United Workers' Party's ideological pretensions of representing workers.[16] The government's imposition of martial law on December 13, 1981, failed to eradicate the movement, as underground activities persisted, culminating in Solidarity's victory in semi-free elections on June 4, 1989, where it secured 99 of 100 contested Sejm seats.[17] Mikhail Gorbachev's ascension to General Secretary of the Communist Party on March 11, 1985, initiated perestroika (economic restructuring) and glasnost (political openness), intended to revitalize the system but instead accelerating its unraveling by revealing corruption, inefficiencies, and suppressed dissent.[18] Perestroika's partial market reforms disrupted central planning without adequate incentives, leading to inflation and shortages, while glasnost eroded the party's monopoly on information, weakening ideological control.[19] Gorbachev's renunciation of the Brezhnev Doctrine in favor of non-intervention—dubbed the "Sinatra Doctrine"—signaled to Eastern European satellites that Moscow would not suppress uprisings, emboldening domestic challenges.[20] The wave of 1989 revolutions began with Poland's electoral shift, spreading to Hungary's border opening to Austria on September 11, allowing thousands to flee to the West, and mass protests in East Germany that pressured the regime.[20] On November 9, 1989, East German authorities, amid confusion over new travel regulations, announced open borders, leading to the spontaneous breaching of the Berlin Wall by crowds who dismantled sections throughout the night.[21] This symbolized the Iron Curtain's collapse, followed by the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia starting November 17, where student demonstrations grew into nationwide strikes toppling the government by December 29; similar non-violent transitions occurred in Bulgaria on November 10, while Romania's revolution from December 16-25 involved violent clashes, resulting in the execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu on December 25.[20] These events, unresisted by Soviet forces, precipitated the Soviet Union's own dissolution after the failed August 1991 coup, as republics declared independence.[22]Political Transformations
Initial Democratization Processes
The initial democratization processes in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe primarily unfolded through negotiated pacts between reformist communist elites and opposition movements in some cases, and mass protests leading to regime collapse in others, beginning in 1989. These transitions replaced one-party rule with multi-party systems, free or semi-free elections, and provisional governments, often retaining elements of elite continuity to avert chaos. By mid-1990, all former communist states in the region had held competitive elections and installed non-communist leadership, though the pace and voluntariness varied, with pacted routes emphasizing compromise to facilitate economic reforms amid Soviet withdrawal.[20][23] In Poland and Hungary, pacted transitions dominated, involving round-table negotiations that legalized opposition groups and scheduled elections while preserving some communist influence. Poland's Round Table Talks, initiated on February 6, 1989, between the government and Solidarity, culminated in the April 4 agreement allowing semi-free parliamentary elections on June 4, where Solidarity secured 99 of 100 Senate seats and 299 of 460 Sejm seats despite reserved spots for communists. This led to Tadeusz Mazowiecki's appointment as the first non-communist prime minister on August 24, 1989. Hungary's Opposition Round Table began March 22, 1989, followed by National Round Table talks from June 13 to September 18, resulting in constitutional amendments for multi-party democracy and the proclamation of the Republic on October 23, 1989; parliamentary elections on March 25 and April 8, 1990, saw the Hungarian Democratic Forum win 42.5% of votes, ending one-party dominance.[20][24][23] Elsewhere, extralegal mass mobilization accelerated regime change without extensive prior negotiation. In Czechoslovakia, the Velvet Revolution erupted in November 1989 with peaceful Prague demonstrations against police brutality, enabling a non-communist government by December 5 and Václav Havel's election as president on December 29. East Germany's protests culminated in the Berlin Wall's fall on November 9, 1989, paving the way for reunification talks with West Germany under Helmut Kohl. Romania's process turned violent in December 1989 protests, leading to Nicolae Ceaușescu's overthrow and execution on December 25, followed by an interim National Salvation Front government promising elections. Bulgaria ousted Todor Zhivkov in late 1989, announcing free elections for 1990. These paths reflected weaker opposition bargaining power or hardline resistance, yielding faster but sometimes unstable initial democratization.[20][23] These early processes established foundational institutions like independent judiciaries and parliaments but faced immediate challenges from economic collapse and power vacuums, with former communists often dominating initial elections due to organizational advantages and voter nostalgia for stability. Empirical assessments note that pacted transitions in Poland and Hungary correlated with smoother institutionalization compared to protest-driven cases, though all prioritized rapid electoral openings over lustration, deferring accountability for past abuses.[24][20]Emergence of Hybrid Regimes and Authoritarianism
Following the initial wave of democratization in the late 1980s and early 1990s, numerous post-communist states transitioned into hybrid regimes, where multiparty elections occurred but were undermined by systematic manipulation, creating competitive authoritarianism rather than genuine pluralism. Scholars Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way define these as systems in which opposition parties have a real but uneven playing field, with incumbents using state resources, media control, and legal harassment to skew outcomes, as opposed to closed autocracies without elections or full democracies with fair competition.[25] This pattern arose due to weak institutional legacies from communist rule, including inherited coercive apparatuses and low societal demand for accountability, compounded by economic instability that favored strongman appeals over liberal reforms.[25] In post-Soviet Eurasia, low integration with Western democracies reduced external leverage against such practices, enabling regime stability through domestic control mechanisms.[25] In Russia, hybrid authoritarianism consolidated after the turbulent 1990s, with Vladimir Putin's 2000 election marking a shift toward centralized control; the state orchestrated the takeover of the independent NTV television network in 2000–2001, eliminating a key opposition voice, while electoral fraud and opposition intimidation became routine.[25] By 2005, Russia's regime was classified as stably competitive authoritarian, bolstered by Soviet-era security structures that suppressed dissent without fully abolishing elections.[25] Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko followed a parallel path after his 1994 victory, with a 1996 referendum allowing indefinite terms and emasculating the legislature, alongside ongoing arrests of opponents and media censorship to maintain hybrid rule.[25] These cases exemplified how incumbents exploited transitional chaos—such as Russia's 1993 constitutional crisis, involving over 400 amendments—to entrench power, often succeeding where state coercive capacity was high.[25] Central Asian post-Soviet states like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan similarly devolved into hybrid or full authoritarianism by the mid-1990s, with leaders Nursultan Nazarbayev and Islam Karimov using clan-based networks and resource monopolies to rig elections and sideline rivals, though formal multiparty systems persisted. In contrast, unstable hybrids in Georgia and Ukraine saw periodic turnovers, as in Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution or Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, triggered by overt fraud like ballot stuffing, highlighting how weaker incumbent organizations could lead to breakdowns rather than consolidation. Empirical analyses of 37 post-Cold War regimes, including six post-Soviet cases from 1990 to 2005, show that only high Western linkage—absent in most Eurasian states—consistently tipped outcomes toward democracy, while low-linkage environments favored authoritarian resilience.[25] Later, in Central and Eastern Europe, hybrid tendencies emerged amid EU integration, driven by populist backlashes to economic inequality and cultural dislocations from rapid market reforms. Hungary's Fidesz party, under Viktor Orbán, secured a two-thirds parliamentary majority in April 2010 elections and promptly enacted a new constitution in 2011 that expanded executive powers, politicized judicial appointments, and centralized media regulation via the National Media Authority, prompting Freedom House to downgrade Hungary from "Free" to "Partly Free" in 2018.[26] Poland's Law and Justice (PiS) party, after winning elections in October 2015, reformed the judiciary in 2017–2019 by lowering retirement ages for judges and creating disciplinary bodies perceived as tools for loyalty enforcement, eroding checks on executive authority despite initial post-1989 gains in freedom scores.[26] These shifts reflect causal factors like voter grievances over corruption and immigration, exploited by incumbents with organizational advantages, though EU sanctions provided partial leverage absent in non-integrated states. By the late 2010s, such backsliding affected about one-third of post-communist EU members, per regional assessments, underscoring persistent vulnerabilities from incomplete institutionalization.[26]Economic Transitions
Strategies of Reform: Shock Therapy versus Gradualism
Shock therapy entailed the rapid, simultaneous implementation of macroeconomic stabilization, price liberalization, privatization of state-owned enterprises, and trade openness to swiftly dismantle central planning and establish market institutions, thereby minimizing opportunities for rent-seeking by former elites.[27] Proponents, including economists like Jeffrey Sachs and Anders Åslund, argued that half-measures would prolong distortions and foster corruption, as seen in theoretical models where gradual changes allow insiders to capture rents before full competition emerges.[28] In practice, this approach was adopted in Poland via the Balcerowicz Plan, enacted on January 1, 1990, which freed most prices overnight, imposed tight monetary policy to curb the money supply, and devalued the zloty by 50% against the dollar while introducing a balanced budget.[29] The plan reduced monthly inflation from 79% in late 1989 to 2.5% by mid-1990, though it triggered a recession with GDP contracting 11.6% in 1990 and 7.3% in 1991 due to the collapse of inefficient state industries and pent-up consumer demand outstripping supply.[30] Recovery followed swiftly, with annual GDP growth accelerating to 2.6% in 1992, 3.8% in 1993, 5.2% in 1994, and 7.0% in 1995, enabling Poland to achieve the fastest expansion among post-communist states by the late 1990s and more than doubling real GDP from 1989 levels over the subsequent decade.[30][29] Similar rapid reforms in Estonia and the Czech Republic yielded comparable patterns: initial output drops of 8-15% in 1990-1992, followed by robust rebounds averaging 4-6% annually through the mid-1990s, supported by early currency board adoption and small-scale privatization that boosted foreign investment and export competitiveness.[31] In Russia, however, the 1992 Gaidar reforms—price liberalization in January, voucher privatization starting in 1992—represented only partial shock therapy, lacking sufficient institutional safeguards against asset stripping; GDP plummeted 14.5% in 1992, 8.7% in 1993, 12.7% in 1994, and 4.1% in 1995, culminating in a cumulative decline of over 40% by 1996 amid hyperinflation peaking at 2,500% in 1992 and the rise of oligarchs through insider deals.[32][33] Gradualism, by contrast, prioritized sequenced reforms—often beginning with enterprise autonomy or partial price adjustments before full liberalization—to mitigate short-term disruptions like unemployment spikes, which reached 12% in Poland post-1990.[34] Hungary exemplified this pre- and post-1989, with reforms under "goulash communism" evolving into incremental privatization and fiscal tightening after 1990, avoiding a "big bang" but resulting in a prolonged recession with GDP falling 3.5% cumulatively from 1990-1993 and slower recovery at 2-4% annually through 1995, hampered by delayed bankruptcy enforcement that preserved zombie firms.[35] Advocates, including some World Bank analyses, contended that gradual steps preserved social stability, but empirical reviews indicate they often entrenched soft budget constraints, delaying structural shifts and fostering crony networks, as in Ukraine's hybrid approach where output fell 60% by 1999 without rebounding until the 2000s.[36] Cross-country data from transition indicators, such as those compiled by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, reveal that economies pursuing faster liberalization and privatization—hallmarks of shock therapy—experienced shallower and shorter recessions, with post-1995 growth rates 1-2 percentage points higher than in gradualist cases, controlling for initial conditions like pre-reform distortions.[31] For instance, Central European shock reformers like Poland and Estonia surpassed 1990 GDP levels by 1996-1997, while FSU gradualists lagged until 2003-2005, attributable to quicker institution-building that enhanced investor confidence and productivity.[37]| Country/Region | Reform Pace | Cumulative GDP Change (1990-1995) | Recovery Year (to Pre-Reform Peak) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poland | Shock | -18% (initial dip, then +20% rebound) | 1992 |
| Estonia | Shock | -25% | 1995 |
| Russia | Partial/Gradual | -40% | 2007 (oil-driven) |
| Hungary | Gradual | -20% | 1995 |
Privatization, Market Liberalization, and Empirical Outcomes
Privatization in post-communist states typically involved transferring state-owned enterprises to private hands through methods such as voucher schemes, direct sales, auctions, and management-employee buyouts, with over 70% of large firms privatized by the mid-1990s in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).[40] Voucher privatization, implemented rapidly in countries like the Czech Republic (1991-1994, covering about 1,500 enterprises) and Russia (1992-1994, affecting thousands of firms), distributed shares to citizens via certificates to build broad ownership, but often resulted in concentrated control by investment funds or insiders due to weak regulatory frameworks.[41] In contrast, Poland emphasized case-by-case sales and foreign investment, privatizing key sectors like banking by the late 1990s, which facilitated technology transfer and efficiency gains.[42] Empirical studies indicate that privatization to foreign owners in transition economies led to rapid productivity improvements of 10-20% in privatized firms, while domestic insider privatization often yielded stagnant or negative effects due to asset stripping and limited restructuring.[43] Market liberalization complemented privatization by dismantling price controls, subsidies, and trade barriers, with CEE countries like Estonia achieving full price liberalization by 1992 and external trade openness shortly after.[40] This shift exposed inefficient state enterprises to competition, spurring reallocation of resources toward export-oriented private sectors; for instance, Poland's liberalization under the 1990 Balcerowicz Plan eliminated most price controls within months, contributing to export growth from 20% of GDP in 1989 to over 40% by 2000.[7] In the former Soviet Union (FSU), partial liberalization prolonged distortions, as seen in Russia's delayed reforms leading to hyperinflation peaking at 2,500% in 1992 before stabilization.[3] Overall, liberalization indices from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) correlate positively with subsequent investment-to-GDP ratios, rising from under 20% in the early 1990s to 25-30% in high-reform CEE states by the 2000s.[40] Empirical outcomes varied by reform speed and institutional quality, with rapid privatization and liberalization in CEE yielding stronger long-term growth despite initial contractions. Countries pursuing extensive reforms (e.g., Poland, Estonia) experienced GDP per capita (PPP) surpassing 1989 levels by the late 1990s, averaging 4-6% annual growth from 1992-2015, compared to FSU gradual reformers stagnating below pre-transition peaks until the 2010s.[3]| Reform Group | Avg. Cumulative GDP Decline (1989-1995) | GDP per Capita PPP (2015, USD) | Poverty Rate (2015, %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Reformers (CEE/Baltics) | 15-25% | 20,000-30,000 | <10% |
| Low Reformers (FSU) | 40-50% | 5,000-10,000 | >20% |
