Well, if people start missing the Soviet union, you probably got concerning problems. I think there is very little causality the other way around (missing the Soviet leads to problems).
Bulgaria, on the other hand, was a close ally of the Soviet Union and more historically, of Russia (at least, more of an ally than Poland.) Yugoslavia wasn't in the Soviet sphere at all and was more "indigenous" and not as repressive as the Soviet states. So in Bulgaria and Ex-Yugoslavia, the memory of the communist era is not as clearly negative as it is in Poland. (Even if it's not positive, either – it's just more murky.)
I think communism or not is besides the point. Poland has a strong imperial tradition where the state spanned from Baltic almost to the Black Sea. They’ve been occupying and ruling for much longer than they’ve been in a socialist camp, and that had a much bigger impact on their national identity. And, as some others noted, being close to Germany gives Poland a big advantage.
On the point of “communism”, take Romania as an example. I took a tour of the Presidential palace when I was in Bucharest. The guide was extremely negative about the communist era(when the palace itself was built), as many Romanians are. She went on and on how the dictator forced the palace construction and how terrible it was. Ironically, the palace is one of the few attraction in Bucharest. Walk just 200m away and it’s going to be rubble and desolation. In summary, I don’t think being anti-communist helps them all that much.
> Bulgaria, on the other hand, was a close ally of the Soviet Union and more historically, of Russia
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bulgaria never was an economic powerhouse or major European power, unlike Poland. Between the Ottomans and other empires, they probably don’t have a history of building a strong economy. Being between rock and a hard place, not having resources, etc. probably contributed much more than what you say.
You got it wrong here.
1)Bucharest doesn't have many eye-catching tourist attractions like a quaint historical old town because of the 1977 earthquake that destroyed a large part of the old historical buildings, and Ceausescu in his infinite wisdom, decided "fuck it, we'll just build concrete commie blocks instead for the communist party members", a highly unpopular decision even back then in those days, that even the lead architect in charge fled the country for speaking up against this idea because he didn't want to desecrate history to build commie blocks.
The only somewhat silver lining of this today, is that due to the over construction of commie blocks back then, Bucharest housing remains somewhat affordable for the average person today despite gentrification, when you look at housing affordability in other EU capitals.
2) People in Romania are rightfully anti-communist due to the atrocities of the regime, and a giant building as a big tourist attraction doesn't change that. Being anti communist does actually help with the imense progress the country made becoming business friendly and attracting foreign investors.
We see that even in Western countries, where a sizable set of boomers want to restore the order of the good old 50 or 60ies and vote conservative or right wing populist parties..
The question is what do the younger generations think and what portion of the population they are.
For the rank and file it might very well be economic, but the up and coming politicians seem to be more about money and power than any actual plan of governance.
The irony about the economic issues is that tax rates and wealth redistribution were so much higher after WW2, and economic inequality was quite a bit less than today. The domination of right wing politics has been increasing inequality for decades, so why would anyone think that moving further to the right would help?
As such, you could say that choosing neo-liberal governments over communist governments doesn't make utilitarian sense for normal people, they should choose the governments that provide them with the basic necessities of life (i.e. housing and the guaranteed opportunity to earn one's living).