What do you know about them? Were they counter-revolutionary controlled by the west? Or just class-cucks?

Attached: Solidarnosc.png (221x89, 4.09K)

Other urls found in this thread:

I try to not think about the Polish.


on balance, the polish people's republic was one of the worst socialist states. whatever the intentions of Solidarnosc members and movement in general, they were exploited ruthlessly by anticommunist forces. I'm sure they were happy when after 'liberation' Warszawa became a giant brothel and the roads at the German border regions were framed by long lines of Polish women prostituting themselves.

Attached: eternal polack.png (1278x2407, 101.93K)

They were the result of $$$actually existing socialism$$$ failing workers, that they were coopted by liberals was out of convenience and doesn't excuse the failings of socialist Poland.

They started as a workers union that wanted more socialism in Polish Peoples Republic
But everybody knows how it ended

Polish Peoples Republic was NazBol as fuck

Attached: pap_ksieza_patrioci_970.jpeg (600x586 189.11 KB, 68.75K)

I love everyone loves striking workers and dislikes post-Stalin USSR, unless this topic is brought up and suddenly it's about counter-revolutionary classcucks fighting against those brave party members defending the actually existing socialism. The fact is Solidarity was an authentic movement, even if it had no fixed ideological ground, as it had everyone tired with then-current state of affairs, from christcucks to trots. The "second", post-martial Solidarity was indeed used by the opposition elites to collaborate with PZPR and ensure a smooth transformation into liberal capitalism, but that's another story.
The funniest thing are retards on the internet like OP who're quick to assume the Solidarity werer evil and counter-revolutionary lovers of neolib capitalism while the party dindu nuffin.


It was mid tier, it was worse than Czechoslovakia or Hungary, but much better than Bulgaria or Romania

The former party members who got rich during the transformation surely were :^)

I've heard that while poor, Communist Bulgaria was actually quite good overall. at least the soviet period was much better than what they had before and after.

the PPR was barely socialist.
Make what you will of that


I'm pretty sure living quality was better than in Hungary. I would argue that behind the GDR and Czechoslovakia, socialist Poland provided the best living quality within the Eastern Bloc.

That is true for every Eastern Bloc country. Name one that does better than before.

Weird, everyone always talked how Hungary was nice because of goulash communism and stuff.

hindsight, eh.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that no matter their intentions or how legitimate or grounded in Marxism their critiques are, any opposition inside a socialist country will end up being co-opted by reactionary forces. The US had no principles when it came to Cold War politics, and while they were obviously anti communist, they were ruthless pragmatists. They rightly saw the USSR as their biggest threat, and so they would sponsor any group that had the potential to undermine them, even if that group was more authentically socialist than the Soviet Union itself. Marx, Stalin and Lenin could have risen from the grave to lead an anti-revisionist revolution against Gorbachev, and they would have gotten CIA funding.

No way, why isn't that happening in China. The CIA, and US porkies, see Communism as an existential threat, ESPECIALLY ML Centrally Planned economy since it explicitly takes the reigns from the bourgeois.
When has the CIA EVER backed a Communist movement. There's nothing in Rojava that would prevent a bourgeois from emerging or foreign investment.

Khmer Rouge, Yugoslavia, Trots, Nixon’s anti-Soviet Pact with China, Ad Hoc Committee for a Marxist Leninist Party
Literally none of those groups had policies that were compatible with American business interests. However they were compatible with US geopolitical interests in the context of the Cold War.
It might be for all we know. Although the US has a massively lucrative business relationship with China, so that probably outweighs their geopolitical rivalry.

Because China isn't socialist you fucking retard.

Don’t forget the OSS saving Ho Chi Minh

Solidarność proper was basically a communist rebellion. Had it succeeded, Poland would move closer to actual socialism.

People criticize it for a nationalist strain, but it was nationalists who opposed the latter pro-western takeover of the country, while the educated internationalists and opportunists in the movement (together with the ruling Party apparatchiks) just collectively bent over.

But it has socialists in it, and it is an enemy to US hegemony. Anarchist user said the CIA are so pragmatic that'd they'd supply arms to Marx himself if he was willing to use them against one of their geopolitical enemies.
This is just not true in the least, and the proof is in China.

He lied to the CIA about his politics. He's been smeared by the bourgeois press ever since.
Dafaq you talking about
Diplomatic treaties =/= support for Communist insurrection. And that was a trade agreement that let US bourgeois exploit Chinese proles so it was a Faustian bargain regardless.

He was operating long before being involved with the CIA. He may have been a retarded ethnonat primitivist, but his ideology and policies were clearly not compatible with capitalism.
The CIA provided covert support to Yugoslavia as well as some Trots.
Ad Hoc Committee for an ML Party was an FBI front that actually conducted radical political action in the 60s.

The US also backed Afghan Maoists who sided with the Mujahideen against the USSR.

It was never a communist or socialist movement. It was just a movement against the “communist” state. And poverty and lack of anything didn’t help the PRL.

It was a mass workers' movement for workers' rights, operating within communist conceptual and praxeological framework.

Any claim to the contrary is ahistorical and (at least on this board) most likely a result of misguided tankie sympathy for Poland's then-government.


Reforms were needed in Poland as in all socialist states of this era and it's a problem that the government wasn't open to this, but Solidarnosc was an anti-socialist and pro-Western movement that managed to successfully hijack this sentiment.

Did it now?

Yes there were. The legislatures were dominated by a single party, and you basically had no hope of influencing anything if you weren’t a communist party member. The party itself had many internal mechanisms that made it undemocratic, such as the relative rarity of party congresses, bans on factions, democratic centralism (ie the restriction of criticism of policies and lines that had already been decided upon), and finally tight control of media that prevented opposing views from proliferating. On top of it all, if a reformer actually did manage to obtain a leadership position and implement changes there’s a real possibility of Soviet intervention against them, as happened to Nagy and Dubček. In fact the reason why instances of mass discontent generally manifested themselves through direct action and street protests is precisely because there was little opportunity to work within the system.

No, and more importantly it's not logic in the first place. I'm not making a logical claim "X therefore Y". I'm making a factual claim "most X happen to Y". (I even made sure to restrict its scope to this board, because outside of it tankies are few and far between, while a lot of rightists wish to claim Solidarność as their own, with similar reasoning.)

Weird, because I'm convinced that dismantling government institutions is one of the main end goals of communist movement. If the supposedly temporary "communist" government ossifies and refuses to dismantle itself, someone else has to do it.
Also, I believe you're conflating the movenemt's goals with the end result, which was a dismantling of socialist institutions, and eventually the government itself, and replacing them with capitalist ones. That, however, happened almost a decade later, and was done entirely by the contry's ruling "socialist" elite; you cannot and should not blame it on the striking workers (apart from the few select traitors).

Also, see .

Why? Was there any chance of a classless, stateless and moneyless society with distribution according to need in Poland in the 80s? Only if you are detached from reality you would think that dismantling the Polish government at that time would not result in a return to a capitalist society.
While that may true, it wasn't that the movement wasn't willing to cooperate with western neoliberal forces, this is something that could have been foreseen. They screwed up just like the government.

Then what stops you from being a member?
Many unorthodox voices made itself heard in the communist parties of the Eastern Bloc in the 80s. What you are mentioning does not obstruct you from carrying out changes in policy. You also completely forget that you still need to be elected to get into a leadership position.
Bad example. Both were right-wing deviations of socialism. Dubcek in particular had to deal with worker's strikes because he was abolishing workplace democracy.

Yes it does. If reformers are threatened with expulsion from the party, barred from criticizing certain policies by democratic centralism, and muzzled by the fact that establishment media won’t publish their views, then these are all going to restrict them from bringing changes through legitimate channels.
Nagy wasn’t. The Soviets main motivation for intervention were strategic concerns regarding the military situation in Eastern Europe, not any supposed rightist deviation in Nagy’s policies. Especially since they allowed Kádár to govern afterwards and he actually did implement market reforms.

Their job was controlled demolition from the inside of socialist state with help of "foreign advisors" (cia), church, embargoes put on Poland, propaganda from hollywood. That lead to mass theft, unemployment, takeover and now disappearance of Poland. Right wing traitors, nothing socialist or worker like about them, they got their money, the rest can be replaced with immigrants for all they care.

Capitalist countries were willing to support communist governments during WW2, the Sino-Soviet split, etc.
Reminder that even Lenin wanted investment from foreign capitalists to help rebuild Russia after the revolution. Not saying it's good, just that there are circumstances that need to be considered. Even if Rojava had a strictly Marxist political program they would still need outside investment and support of some kind.

Despite Solidarity's Leadership being US backed the PPR's response to it (Union Busting / Martial Law / Arbitrary repression) was unforgivable and was a betrayal of the Proletariate

That wasnt proletariate. Useful idiots that shot their own foot, because they promised them millions, just to destroy socialism. And they got millions - of unemployed, hungry and poor. People voted on commies in next elections, but it was too late - former commies turned ultracapitalist, and all was lost.

Stupid shill.



This is the heart of the problem. Neither Solidarnosc nor the PZPR was loyal to the proletariat, and the proletariat had no way to hold either faction accountable. Both groups saw an opportunity to become rich by looting the public, and you can't vote out capitalism.

Vanguard parties were a mistake.


PZPR was, literally 44 years of real socialism. Solidarnosc pushing capitalism never was/is, succdem "more welfare" doesnt count.

And then they got voted back into power, with a popular mandate to reverse Solidarnosc's "reforms", and implemented more capitalism. Revolutionary vanguards look out for the vanguard, not the workers, and capitalism will always award elites more than socialism does.

“Real socialism” is when there is private property and capitalists are allowed to sell shit but in special shops. Also socialism is when government does stuff and when managers hold more power (and gain more money) then the workers