2007-11-03 08:33:40 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Don't know about Poland - but I'll give you Croatia (former yugoslavia) as my wife's family live there.
They have very low crime - women can still walk down the street in safety.
They have a laid back attitude to life & work.
They retire after 30 years working.
Nobody really cares about what the next door neighbours have - they either have it or they don't.
The kids don't take the p!ss out of another for not having designer trainers.
Most business deals are done over coffee at the nearest cafe and a handshake is a binding agreement without the need for solicitors.
Family is the most important value and you look after your old - you don't stick them in a home.
2007-11-03 10:03:45 · answer #1 · answered by one shot 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There was at least a social infrastructure and everyone had a job and a roof over their head.
Can you really say that is the case today in Poland and for that matter the U K which is said to the fourth richest country in the world.
What a sick joke, seven million people not economically active in the U K and New Labour encouraging people from eastern Europe to come and fill the vacancies for well below the minimum wage and live in sub standard conditions.
The Whitehall government should be taken before the European Court of Justice for their deception, fraud and exploitation of E U citizens.
2007-11-03 16:09:06 · answer #2 · answered by Renewable 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not know. It would involve swotting up on a few books and a worthy study of the all the areas involved, to give a proper deduction.
But it’s a quality question.
2007-11-03 16:45:33 · answer #3 · answered by insert_ nickname_ here! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, said:"From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs". If I said my needs are $100,000 to live comfortably and I could only produce goods and services worth $20,000 you or others out there would have to produce $ 80,000 worth just to keep me happy. Now if you also needed more than you produced, others would have to produce more and keep less. Why would they want to produce just to keep me and you happy when they could not even keep what they create? That's why communism failed--no one wanted to work their butt off just to have to give it all up so so someone lazier than them would be happy.
2007-11-03 16:31:05 · answer #4 · answered by Mike 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the reason we didnt suffer communism is because our forfatthers had the sense to repel any idea of it...but the there is other things worse than communism and thats greed and religion...because both breed destruction.....
2007-11-03 15:47:19 · answer #5 · answered by norton 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bad thought and thinkable questions
2007-11-03 15:52:23 · answer #6 · answered by Roze 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well a few more years of Comrade Brown and you ll have a pretty good idea.
2007-11-03 15:58:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Have a coke and chill out.
2007-11-03 15:41:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We'd look like
"Damn! What we let communism take over for?"
2007-11-03 15:39:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
socialism based on a capitalist model WORKS !!
Communism, does not.
...poorer, I guess.
2007-11-03 15:41:07 · answer #10 · answered by Laurence B 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋