Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I’d like to think it’s simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.
Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I’d like to think it’s simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.
Poverty spiked after the dissolution of the USSR. Growth was positive. I’m not surprised that socialist countries were not materially wealthy, what I’m pointing out is that the dissolution spiked poverty. Poland selling out to foreigners was a deliberate action to enrich the few and plunder Poland, not a necessity.
Poland was selling out (taking loans) from foreigners in 1970 and 1980 to fund USSR policies. By the 1989 when it was freed from USSR the foreign debt was mature, Poland had no venues to borrow new money untill mature debts were financed - this is the timeline and casuality of plundering Poland.
We were fucked by the Paris Club (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_and_the_International_Monetary_Fund) but the real cause is the fucking damn being colony of USSR.
The USSR reconstructed Poland after the war, and often forgave Polish debts. From @AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml’s research:
Quoting Dorothy W. Douglas’s Transitional Economic Systems: The Polish–Czech Example (a work by an economic anthropologist), page 66:
Page 130:
Pages 310–311:
Page 359:
[Click here for further examples of communist reconstruction.]
Pages 40 & 46:
Pages 50–51:
Page 57:
Quoting Sultan Barakat’s Russia’s Approach to Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The History, Context, and its effect on Ukraine, page 40:
The Soviets also forgave Polish debts. Quoting Adam Zwass’s The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance: The Thorny Path from Political to Economic Integration, page 22:
I’d like to remind you that an absolute unit of Polish industry was piece by piece moved to USSR. Which I already told you about earlier IIRC including list of moved heavy industries.
Anyone claiming Soviet invested in Poland should compare the amount of German war reparations that Soviet took over that should’ve been paid to Poland vs the “investments” made by the USSR.
Thank you for proving my point that we were forced to “trade” with the USSR. Subservient, colonized trade. For example, the USSR forced Poland to invest in shipbuilding (that we had to loan for) with a quota of ships to be traded for, for which of course the payment was transfer rubles managed by the USSR empire in their centralized bank - forcing inter-USSR trade by the prices made by the USSR. (Btw transfer rubles were also a part of Polish financial problems after 1990, see https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afera_rublowa#%3A~%3Atext=Afera+rublowa+–+Wikipedia%2C+wolna+encyklopedia)
Anywho, by the 1980 the USSR, under prices that they enforced, Poland owed USSR 4 billion transfer roubles and was demanded to repay that in USD at the value of 7.3 billion USD.
Poland was a free country since 1918. Before that it was conquered by Russia, Germany and Austria for 123 years. In the 20 years of not being a colony and exploited by those 3 countries, Poland has managed to kickstart it’s own chemical industry, to be top of the class in post WW1 Europe - see example https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Zakładów_Azotowych_w_Tarnowie-Mościcach
If your source claims that Poland had no chemical industry, you can use that source as a kindling.
Poland trading with other socialist countries during its socialist period makes sense, no? Poland depended quite heavily on the USSR and was integrated into socialist trade, which worked remarkably well for developing Poland. As you point out, Poland is getting actually colonized by the west right now. Poland’s nationalists have historically been strong, and now they have essentially purged all opposition.
I need to ask something off topic:
You’re getting insta downvoted (maybe me too, or you’re downvoting me, don’t care).
Dear lurker, care to join?
I dismissed the only source you gave for that by pointing the author clearly didn’t know what they were talking about “Poland had no chemical industry”.
I gave Polish sources that show the numbers that it did not work well for Poland development. I told you about the transfer rubles, that the USSR was dictating the prices of good to be paid in those and requiring them paid back in the USD.
I told you (with sources) you how the USSR forced Poland to take foreign loans during 1970 and 1980, that later had to be repaid after Poland was allowed to leave USSR and that it was the reason we had to privatize shitton of stuff and had galloping inflation in the early 90s (Poland and the IMF).
I listed somewhere in the topic list of heavy industries stolen by the USSR just after the war.
We compared poverty rates, GDP per capita in PPP all in favour of Poland not being an occupied country.
I linked to Polish protests and general strikes against USSR forcing Poland into food poverty in the 1980s.
And yet you still claim that USSR occupation was good for the Poland and Polish people financially.
Can you imagine an argument that would convince you that you’re wrong? What would that argument be?
I gave you more than just those sources, it’s like you forgot that we had an entire conversation days ago. The USSR was not colonizing Poland, and socialism worked dramatically well for Poland. Of course, it wasn’t perfect, but at the same time it doesn’t mean abandoning socialism was the correct move.
I gave you sources on instability of growth, on skyrocketing poverty rates, on real industrial development, and more. You’re taking the wording of Poland having “no” chemical industry in the context of a broader point on development of industry, which Poland was lagging behind in prior to socialism, as an excuse to dismiss the entire point.
If you were willing to actually read my points instead of brushing them away and spiraling into endless tangents then perhaps I would be able to be swayed by you. However, on the things we can both agree on as fact, we utterly disagree on interpretation.
The point I made was that USSR (who happened to be pretending to be socialist) SUCKED for Poland and freeing itself from USSR was good for Poland (even though now were stuck with the capitalism).
The instability of growth I dismiss as immaterial. Why is growth supposed to be stable?
Skyrocketing poverty rates - refuted as loan repayment and bankrupcy under USSR - please note that your data points same poverty as 1.5% vs (vastly more during multiple decades under USSR occupation).
Financed on loans Poland was forced to make that made sure the Poland was not self sustainable.
If the Dorothy whatever bases her theory on Polish development under USSR based on the wrong data (like critically wrong), and your unable to provide other sources, you’ve made false claims, not a point.
I doubt that we agree on facts, as the what you quote as facts doesn’t always seem to be… anchored… in reality. And yet not once you said “you’re right, bad source”. I did a few times?
Oh, that’s no longer something I think is possible. Now I genuinely wonder if there’s a fact, or an argument, or smthing, that could make you change your wrong opinion that USSR occupation was good for Poland (against will of Polish worker class might I add, as proven by the multiple strikes - you also need to understand that the strikes were not necessarily against socialism system, but against being forced by USSR into subserviency)
The USSR was socialist, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes controlled the state. The fact that you claim that they were “pretending” to be socialist just calls the rest of your points into question. The dissolution of socialism resulted in the far-right taking hold of Poland, purging the left, and selling the country out to the west.
Growth being unstable points to problems with the economy, slumps, overproduction and other inefficiencies.
Poverty skyrocketed after the dissolution of socialism. Poland then sold out to the west, and joined the imperialists in Europe. Poland’s economic gains as of late are primarily due to being folded into the western Empire.
Poland and the USSR were both devastated by war. There were certianly economic problems, but this is not a case of colonialism.
Given how you’ve misread most of my sources, it’s unsurprising that you’re misreading Dorothy showing the drastic difference between socialist Poland’s chemical production and pre-War.
I could say the same of yourself. You constantly misread what I write, taking several comments to correct your misconception, and the same applies to sources I link.
Strikes in Poland does not equate to an absolute desire to erase socialism in Poland. As Parenti said:
You genuflect to orthodoxy.