I don't know much about Eastern Europe, but it seems to me that many of the rising
class of capitalists (and capitalist politicians) there also were "entrepreneurs" in
the illegal markets. I would guess that in Poland, some of them were corrupt unionists
from Solidarnosc.
Jim Devine
-----Original Message-----
From: "Chris Doss" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 9:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Well, yeah, but I was just trying to say that the only people who had any
experience with administration in e.g. Poland were former Communists, for obvious
reasons. People running around publishing samizdat aren't usually experts on city
planning.
Russia's a big exception to this.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:41:05 -0800
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
> of course, back when they ran "communist countries," they tried to make sure
that no-one else _could_ govern unless they'd already proved their loyalty...
> Jim D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Chris Doss" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 3:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
>
>
>
> I don't know about the Romanian situation in particular, but one
reason why former "Communist" leaders are in power thruought EE is that they are the
only ones with experience in actually running a country.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:46:35 -0800
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
>
> > given how bad the Rumanian government was before Ceaucescu was
overthrown, I find the view presented by NPR poet-commentator to be a bit more
plausible: the same thugs that ruled before the "revolution" ended up in power
afterwards (with the notable exception of Ceaucescu and his family).
> >
>
>
>
