John Paul II and Lech Walesa, January 15, 1981
Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher offers a corrective in Slate to some of the inflated claims of the role of Pope John Paul II in the collapse of communism in Europe. Although claiming to see the bigger picture, the piece is remarkably myopic. Fisher draws entirely on the experience of the people of Germany, who smashed down their wall. As he writes, “No one I spoke to in Leipzig that night mentioned the pope.”
I always asked: Why are you doing this? And the answers came in a torrent, as if decades of silence had been unplugged. Especially in East Germany, where almost everyone could watch West German TV (though they had to keep the volume way down because it was strictly verboten to watch, and if the neighbor heard, there could be trouble), people talked about their jealousy for the material goods that Westerners enjoyed–the clothes, the shoes, the cars, the food. They talked about their dreams of traveling outside the Soviet Bloc and about the hopes–mainly for a particular career or area of study–they’d had when they were young. And they talked about the freedom to say what they wanted or to teach their children about realities other than what the socialist state had ordained.
Many people showed remarkable courage, as well as an intuitive grasp of complex issues in game theory. After all, the most important chant in Leipzig and Dresden was not “Kommunisten ‘raus!” (“Communists Out!”) but “Auf die Strasse!” (“Onto the street!”). They knew that the more people who could be mobilized to join the protests, the lower the chance that any one of them would be punished, and the greater the chance (as well as the chants) that yet more would join.
But …. it was events in Poland that showed that one could stand up to the Communists, that there were a lot more of “us” than there were of “them.” No one can reasonably deny the impact of the Catholic Church in Poland in demonstrating the hollowness of the People’s State. The impact was systemic and was felt, indirectly to be sure, in virtually everything that followed. (And we shouldn’t forget the influence of the Hungarians, who pressured their government to allow the East Germans who had poured into their country to cross freely into Austria.)
Fisher acknowledges that influence, but then for some reason suggests that to acknowledge it is to imply that nothing else mattered:
This week, it’s been a given in most of the tributes to the pope that he was fully or at least largely responsible for the fall of communism and the collapse of the Soviet empire. And surely, this pope’s firm and insistently communicated stand for freedom inspired his fellow Poles to rise up against the regime that controlled their country.
But elsewhere in the old Eastern Bloc, the pope’s impact was at least a couple of steps removed from the courageous decisions that ordinary people made to head out onto the streets and march in protests that they fully expected would be met with absolute resistance from the Soviet forces and their local puppets.
In other words, many people demonstrated their courage. Perhaps in Germany, among those with whom Fisher met, “No one I spoke to in Leipzig that night mentioned the pope.” But that does not mean that he had no influence on them. Acknowledging that they also showed their own courage does not diminish the influence for good of John Paul II. No, he did not wrestle Communist tyranny to the ground single handedly. But he did put his considerable resources and energy into showing that it could be defeated. I will always remember him with fondness for his courage and effectiveness in staring down Communism and helping millions of people to escape from tyranny.
It seems that many of the lauding of deceased world leaders is partly justified but largely exaggerated. Yes, John Paul II had, because of the position of power he was in, a large amount of influence in helping Walesa and his movement eradicate the scourge of communism. But, as you mention (and correct me if I’m misinterpreting this post), he was by far not the only catalyst. Just because Reagan was responsible, depending on who you ask, for a portion of the global demise of communism doesn’t mean he should be hailed as *the* victor in the battle against communism, badly dressed Party leaders, Soviet-era automobiles and the like.
But nonetheless, the Pope did have a significant impact on the movement to rid his homeland of that evil. And for that, he deserves all the credit he’s due.
Karl Marx & V.I. Lenin did more than anyone else to bring down Soviet-style communism…by designing a system that was inconsistent & incoherent, politically and economically.
John Paul II deserves credit for bravely opposing the system (as do many others) — but no one “brought down communism.”
Exactly. Communism brought itself down. Credit just must go to those who opposed it in light of the oppressive situation in the bloc.
I am amused that, after Christopher Hitchen’s piece in Slate about the pope, anyone could call anything else appearing in Slate “A Narrow and Uncharitable View…”. Hitchen’s is not one to let a little thing like the death of an adversary stop one from giving him a glorious thrashing.
RL
The New York Times has been horrific the last couple of days with their coverage of the Catholic Church. Predictably, today they went after Cardinal Law for holding a mass in St. Peter’s Basilica.
Why shouldn’t they go after him? Didn’t he repeatedly protect rapists of children?
– but no one “brought down communism.”
I agree that communism “brought istelf down”, but first try to explain that to the Reagan hagiographers. 😉
Communist tryanny “brought itself” down? This is a new one from the liberarians.
I guess you can hang up your boots, liberty just happens magically (so why waste your time being libertarians????)
(gawd, why do I always feel like I just cleaned the inside of a septic tank whenever I call myself “libertarian”?)
It easy to explain how Soviet communism brought itself down. The only question is how much detail to include.
The basics of central planning were established by Lenin and Stalin, via their interpretations of Marx coupled with their concessions to markets (the failure of War Communism brought home the need for such concessions).
Central planning achieved economic growth by resource mobilization. However, market economies grow primarily by means of innovation, technical improvement. Hence a market economy can grow so long as people develop new ideas, unlike resource-based growth which faces the usual Malthusian barrier.
Once resources were fully mobilized, Soviet growth slowed, stopped, and by Brezhnev’s reign (late 60’s) per capita output was falling. (Possibly this began under Khruschev.)
A falling standard of living, a politically demoralized populace, and worsening environmental & health conditions brought about the breakup. Gorbachev’s reforms hastened the process by worsening economic conditions and reducing the control over the populace.
Had the Soviet system worked, not Reagan, nor Carol Wojtiwa, nor Gorbachev, nor anyone else could have brought it down.
Good references for details are Aslund’s “Building Capitalism,” Boettke’s “Why Perestroika Failed” Feshbach & Friendly’s “Ecocide in the USSR,” and my own chapter in Morris’ “Sustainable Development.”
Incidentally, this isn’t a libertarian argument, it is an argument from mainstream economics.
Mr. Steele: Your assumption the POINT of communism was “economic stability or growth” and not the boot of power stomping on the faces of others. The POINT of communist was tyranny and oppression, and it was working quite well up to 1989.
You make a dangerous assumption, but one quite common to “libertarian economists” who can’t see the forest from the trees.
Actually “my” argument makes no assumption as to the objective (“point”) of communism.
The argument is simply that any system that generates declining living standards is going to fail. And for a variety of fairly well understood reasons, *central economic planning* generates this sort of economic failure over the longer run.
Note that this is a feature of central planning, not simply of communism. It isn’t “my” argument — it is standard in the economics of comparative systems & transition.
Also, it isn’t a “libertarian economist” point. For example, Harvard economist Paul Krugman has made this exact argument regarding the Soviet Union, as has Stanley Fischer (formerly of MIT & IMF). Neither are libertarians. It is pretty well understood by economists (particularly transition economists) regardless of political leanings in particular.
I am curious how you determined that tyranny was the point (objective, I assume you mean) of communism. According to Marx, the objective was a utopia with liberty & prosperity. Lenin argued that tyranny (dictatorship) was simply a means to the final utopian endstate predicted by Marx.
Before long Soviet communist officials gave up this fantasy; at that point their objective seems primarily to have been preservation of their own power. Oppression was an important means to this end, but not the only one.
Also, it is incorrect to say that the tyranny and oppression were “working well” up to 1989. I don’t know how you define “working well,” but the (former) Soviet people I’ve talked with on this subject describe a life of relative freedom during Gorbachev’s time, as well as poorly functioning gov’t systems, including those agencies enforcing the rules.
Soviet communism was a brutal, evil, and badly designed system. It generated internal conditions that led to its own collapse.
As I said earlier, the only hard thing in making these points is determining how much detail to include. For a blog post, I have probably given too much.
Attempting “Central Planning” is impossible without tyranny. You give Marx and Lenin and the rest of these tyrants too much credit…their aim, dear sir, was ALWAYS enslave their neighbors and rob them of their lives.
It is sad you try to “magic away” the efforts of those who threw away their chains with your rather incomplete theories. It is a flaw common to most economists.
In short, you give vile madmen such as Marx and Lenin way too much credit (fantasy? what sick joke, they were not innocent!) while short-changing the anti-communsists who helped liberate the oppressed peoples of one of the largest slave-states in modern times. Why?
PS: “Relative” freedom in a police state is still not freedom.
my name is alex and im not the most attractive man on the planet but i think that the pope was a good man and a good ambassador for catholicism. im ugly
Whether or not “it brought itself down” isn’t even the point. The point is Pope John Paul helped make it possible while providing hope for people, and even put his life on the line in doing so. Thank you site-owner for the good words on one of the kindest human beings ever to walk the earth.
-Chris Stewart
Half Polish
Adult bondage movies
Seivom, adult bondage movies and adult
Nacked fucking teens video
Oediv, nacked fucking teens video and nacked
Black women pissing
Gnissip, black women pissing and black
Extrem geile muschis
Sihcsum, extrem geile muschis and extrem
Free download sexy movie
Eivom, free download sexy movie and free