Social and Economic Changes in Post-socialist Cities - Essay Example

Socialism is a concept that was mainly advocated by the Soviet Union during the era of cold war. The competing ideology of socialism was capitalism, and the major country that practiced capitalism was United States. On this basis, the ideological war was between the US, supporting capitalism, and the Soviet Union with their socialist/communist ideology.. However, the 1989 collapse of the USSR, the most dominant ideology became capitalism. Countries that were supporters of the Soviet Union began to restructure their economies to implement the capitalistic ideology. Bulgaria is amongst those countries. Introduction: Socialism is an economic and social ideology that is characterized by the social ownership of various means of production, and the management of the economy in a cooperative aspect. Socialism is also a political movement, and theory that aims at establishing a socialist state. Panayotakis (2010) reveal that social ownership of a property may refer to common ownership, cooperative enterprises, ownership of equity by citizens, state ownership, or a combination of the above factors. Socialism takes a variety of forms, and it is therefore important to understand that a single definition of socialism that takes into consideration all the forms of socialism does not exist. These differences in the modes of socialism includes in the type of ownership that exists, the degree or rate upon which they rely on planning and market, and how they manage the various institutions of the republic. It is important o denote socialism is an ideology that is introduced and promoted by a given state (Bandelj, 2012). On this basis, to effectively understand this concept of socialism, there is a need of understanding the role that states play in the construction of socialism. The economic systems that practice socialism are grounded on the concepts of production for use. This is a concept that is used to refer to a situation whereby the production of services and goods are aimed at directly satisfying the human needs, and economic demands of the society (MacKenzie, 2012). Based on this fact, goods and services under this ideology are valued in terms of their utility, as opposed to the profit that the production can bring. This paper concerns itself with answering the question that what are the economic and social changes in Post Socialism Bulgaria. Between 1940, to 1990, Bulgaria was a socialist state, and MacKenzie (2012) consider it to be a satellite state of the Soviet Union. This is during the era of cold war, where there were two dominant ideologies competing, that of socialism, and capitalism. Literature Review: Bulgaria was one of the most important allies of the Soviet Union, and on this basis, this country was deeply affected by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which forced the country to re-orient its policies and economy towards the western countries (Datta, 2010). However, in the current century, there are a number of reasons and objectives that would force Bulgaria to restore its relations with Russia, which is a predecessor of the Soviet Union. It is important to denote that the fall of the Soviet Union, and the dissolution of the socialist camp was an event that occurred more than 20 years ago (Lebowitz, 2012). The fall of the Soviet Union was characterized by a radical change from socialism, to capitalism and liberalism as the domestic and foreign policy of most states that were allies of the Soviet Union. This did not only affect the states under consideration, but it also affected the individual lives of all people who were involved in the transition. Schumpeter (2010) reveals that Bulgaria was one of the countries that was adversely affected by these changes, and this is because the country was heavily dependent on the Soviet Union, both politically, and economically. When Bulgaria is compared to Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria adopted the principles of communism and socialism, as dictated by the Soviet Union. Studies reveal that Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary used to modernize the principles of socialism that were imposed by Moscow. This was for purposes of developing a model of socialism that was acceptable by their citizens, and a model that was easy to implement in their countries (Chattopadhyay, 2010). In as much as Romania was part of the socialist block, it was an active dissident, always opposing some aspects of socialism. On this basis, the Soviet Union remained with only Bulgaria as its staunch supporter, and an ally who would not compromise or oppose any policies emanating from the Soviet Union (Datta, 2010). It is important to denote that the reasons for such unconditional support of the Soviet Union by Bulgaria, emanates from the fact the two countries had a long historical ties, which were characterized by similar linguistic and cultural behavior. As a matter of fact, Dimitrova (2010) reveals that Bulgaria was referred to as the Sixteenth Province of the Soviet Union republic. Gal and Kligman (2000) denote that economic aid emanating from the Soviet Union was very important, for the citizens of Bulgaria, and the state as a whole. After the Second World War, Datta (2012) denote that more than 300 industries were created in the country, and most of these industries were developed by the help of the Soviet Union. In fact, Lenin and Blanc (2008) reveal that Bulgaria was able to export 60% of their produce to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, studies reveal that the Soviet Union was able to supply fuel, hydrocarbons, and agricultural products to Bulgaria, at a price that was very low. This economic dependence to the Soviet Union was deeply entrenched in Bulgaria, and Dimitrova (2010) denote that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, most citizens of Bulgaria did not support an initiative to start cooperating immediately with the Western countries, in terms of economics, and other aspects of foreign relations. Gal and Kligman (2000) denotes that in 1989, the Communist Party of the country was able to elect new officials, and they began a series of reformations targeting the economic and political system of Bulgaria. In fact, Lenin and Blanc (2008) denotes that the Communist Party was changed to the Socialist Party, and it became of the leading parties in Bulgaria. It is important to understand that because of the close relationship that Bulgaria had with the Soviet Union, the leaders of this party did not want to initiate an abrupt change of relations with the Eastern allies of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union itself (Lenin and Blanc, 2008). However, the leadership of this new party proposed a series of measures, which included modernizing the treaty that formed the War Saw Pact, and even reforming the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CAMECON) into a new organization that reflected the trends occurring in the world. This is in terms of economic and political trends (Creed, 1991). It is important to denote that in as much as the Socialist Party was reluctant to sever ties immediately with the Soviet Union and its allies; there were other organizations in Bulgaria that supported an immediate cessation of relations with the Soviet Union, and a quick integration into the economic and political structure of the Western Europe. This included supporting capitalism, and liberalism of the economy of Bulgaria. The people who were advocating for an immediate cessation of relationship with the Soviet Union formed a party referred to as the Union of Democratic Party. This party became an opponent of the Socialist Party, challenging some of its ideologies and policies. It is important to denote that currently, the party in power is Citizens of European Development (GERB), has the same ideologies and principles with the Union of Democratic Party. It is therefore important to understand that the dualism in the nature of the relationship with Russia is based on the political party in power. Politicians were supposed to give an account on whether they were pro-Russians, or Pro-Western countries. Based on this analysis, on the relationship between Soviet Union and Bulgaria, it will be important to understand how a change in socialism affected Bulgaria (Anton, 2012). Did the economy of the country improve, or the welfare of the citizens of the state improved because of the fall of socialism. This close relationship between Bulgaria and the Soviet Union, which was a major proponent of socialism, is the main reason as to why the researcher is looking at this concept of post socialism Bulgaria, and its impact. Empirical and Theoretical Argument: With the collapse of socialism, and adoption of capitalism, Bulgaria was able to liberalize its economy, as a result, attracting a large number of multi-national organizations operating in the country. However, despite this large number of foreign investments in Bulgaria, the country was ranked as the lowest income earning countries, which formally practiced socialism (Fleming, 2008). The country is also faced with a high sense of economic flight, whereby its citizens are accused of moving to Europe, in search of better economic opportunities, and better living conditions. Scholar denotes that capitalism has failed in Bulgaria, and this is because there is rampant corruption in Bulgaria, the leaders of the country are unable to enforce the rule of law, and nepotism thrives in Bulgaria (Cramme, 2012). In fact, most Bulgarians, who were born in the years of 1970, and below, are firm supporters of socialism. To them, because of socialism, food was cheap in Bulgaria, the rate of joblessness was zero, and there was a high social safety rate. To them communism was far much better than capitalism. However, Fleming (2008) denotes that capitalism is not a factor that led to the failure of the Bulgarian economy, but the structures of its governance were weak, in relation to the implementation and creation of capitalism in Bulgaria. According to Scarboro (2012), Bulgaria has weak governance structures, which are not independent, and as a result of this, corruption and nepotism thrives in Bulgaria. Dimou (2009) gives an example of a post socialist state such as Czechoslovakia and Romania which have managed to effectively integrate their economies into capitalism. From the views of Ilieva (2010), a country such as Romania has governance institutions which are accountable to the people, and on this basis, they normally strive to work for the benefits of their people. Accusing capitalism of promoting corruption, nepotism and lower standards of living is therefore inaccurate and uncalled for. This is because countries known to have successfully practiced capitalism have a very lower rate of corruption, if not at zero percent. Take for instance United States of America and Britain, these countries have a very high economic growth, and this is because of their adoption of capitalism. These countries have institutions that make their office holders to be responsible for any policy they initiate and their implementation. On this basis, any person holding a public office does so, for the good of the country under consideration. In fact, Russia, the important ally of Bulgaria during the cold war period successfully practiced capitalism; as a result, it is emerging as one of the economic giants in the world (Meurs, 2008). On this basis, scholars denote that capitalism is not a factor that is responsible for increasing the conditions of life in Bulgaria, and making the country one of the poorest in Europe, but its failure to effectively implement the structures and principles of capitalism such as establishing accountability of all actions by public and civil servants. It is also important to understand that the post socialist Bulgaria was able to develop and enact the principles of democracy. It is important to understand that the fall of the communist party in 1989 brought a lot of benefits to the people of Bulgaria. The party was later on reformed to the Socialist party, which advocated for a gradual cessation of relationship with the Soviet Union. This also led to the rise of other parties such as the Union of Democracy Party (UDF), the movement of freedoms and rights (MRF) (Mentan, 2012), etc. Initially, it was only the communist party that existed, and competition for any political office was to occur under the context of the socialist party. It is important to denote that the communist rulers of Bulgaria were strongly against democracy, and they described it as anarchic, and a bourgeois institution. However, this changed with the fall of socialism, and the communist party, which saw the removal of President Zhivkov from power, and leadership of the communist party. One notable and important aspect to speak about democratization in Bulgaria is the 1990, Round table talks. Through these talks, Bulgaria was able to come up with a law that would promote democracy (Díaz, 2010). The law under consideration is the election and political parties act. This law formed the Grand National Assembly, which was responsible for the preparation of the constitution, preparing the country for elections within 18 months. Since 1990, it is important to denote that Bulgaria has been holding democratic elections after every five years. Sadly, the elected officials of Bulgaria never served the interests of the poor, or the people, but that of a large economic actor. For instance in 2013, people in Bulgaria protested against the economic policies of the ruling president and his party that is the socialist party. This forced the resignation of the Prime Minister, Mr. Plamen Oreshaki, and the election of the GERB party, led by Mr. Borisov. These protests were largely because of poor governance, and nepotism in government appointments. Conclusion: In conclusion, it is important to denote that the state of affairs in post socialist Bulgaria is not good. This is because the institutions established to carter for transition did not do a good job, as a result, Bulgaria is faced with corruption, nepotism, poor standards of living, and a democratic state characterized by poor governance. The older generations of Bulgarians blame this on the development of capitalism. This is wrong, and this is because capitalism does not lead to a poor condition of living, but it improves these conditions of living. This is through large scale investments, responsible for providing jobs to the population. All that is needed is an establishment of institutions responsible for promoting accountability of all public servants. References: Anton, A. (2012). Taking socialism seriously. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. Bandelj, N. (2012). Socialism vanquished, socialism challenged: Eastern Europe and China, 1989-2009. New York: Oxford University Press. Chattopadhyay, P. (2010). The Myth of Twentieth-Century Socialism and the Continuing Relevance of Karl Marx. Socialism and Democracy, 24(3), 23-45. Cramme, O. (2012). After the third way the future of social democracy in Europe. London: I.B.Tauris. Creed, G. W. (1991). Between economy and ideology: Local‐level perspectives on political and economic reform in Bulgaria. Socialism and Democracy, 7(2), 45-65. Datta, A. (2010). Socialism, democracy and industrialization a collection of essays. London: Routledge. Datta, A. (2012). Socialism, democracy and industrialization. London: Routledge. Dimitrova, I. (2010). How We Raised a Monster: Constructing the Image of Socialism during the Post-Socialist Period in Bulgaria. History of Communism in Europe, 1(-1), 153-165. Dimou, A. (2009). Entangled paths towards modernity contextualizing socialism and nationalism in the Balkans. Budapest: Central European University Press. Díaz, E. D. (2010). Cuba at the Onset of the 21st Century: Socialism, Democracy and Political Reforms. Socialism and Democracy, 24(1), 49-69. Fleming, T. (2008). Socialism. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark. Gal, S., & Kligman, G. (2000). Reproducing gender: politics, publics, and everyday life after socialism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Ilieva, P. (2010). Bulgaria at the Cross-Roads of Post-socialism and EU Membership: Generational Dimensions to European Integration. Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe, 10(2), 18-28. Lebowitz, M. A. (2012). The contradictions of "real socialism" the conductor and the conducted. New York: Monthly Review Press. Lenin, V. I., & Blanc, P. (2008). Revolution, democracy, socialism selected writings. London: Pluto. MacKenzie, N. I. (2012). Socialism. London: Routledge. Mentan, T. (2012). Socialism the only practical alternative to contemporary capitalism. Mankom, Bamenda: Langaa Research & Publishing CIG ;. Meurs, M. (2008). Decentralisation and development in post-socialism: local characteristics and outcomes in post-socialist Bulgaria. Post-Communist Economies, 20(1), 11-32. Panayotakis, C. (2010). Capitalism, Socialism, and Economic Democracy: Reflections on Todays Crisis and Tomorrows Possibilities. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 21(4), 7-33. Scarboro, C. (2012). The late socialist good life in Bulgaria: meaning and living in a permanent present tense. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. Schumpeter, J. A. (2010). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge. Read More