In today’s society, power over the means of production and labor is how capitalism continuously controls wealth distribution. Nonetheless, for socialist societies such as Poland, the workers rather than the wealthy minority of capitalist or functionaries dictate the rate of production. Furthermore, socialist societies provide a system of both collective and individual ownership in terms of production. Socialism is primarily collective because people have the ability too control production unlike those living in capitalist driven societies. Essentially, production in socialist societies is for the greater good rather than for individual profit of an institution. Thus, following World War II we saw a shift in the way both capitalist and socialist societies treated their workers. Furthermore, the paper will focus on the effect of reforms undertaken by socialist countries in the 1980s and 1990s introduced not only new ways of conducting business, but also new forms of personhood. All throughout society, social constructs such “fordism” was put in place by institutions to regulate the rate of production and “consumption” by people. Thus, in terms of Eastern Europe’s transition from socialism is due to the larger impact of capitalism on the world. For instance, this is essentially the modification of “fordism” to neoliberal capitalism. In Privatizing Poland: Baby Food, Big Business, and the Remarketing of Labor shows how organizational innovations such as niche marketing, accounting, audit, and standardization are the recipe for “flexible” capitalism forms of labor regulation. In the 1900s, Henry Ford founded Ford Motor Company, which went on to create the Model-T car. Although the invention of cars has had a significant impact on society, it is Ford’s creation of the assembly line also known as “fordism” that was put in place to speed up the rate of production. The assembly line or “fordism” would go on to be modeled after by every major manufacturing company and the formation of capitalistic societies as well. Furthermore, Dunn states “while Fordism and state socialism may have shared the same modernizing project, they resulted in two different modernity’s, which lead to both radically different experiences of labor and the construction of workers as different ty