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.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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:

        In foreign trade the pre-war level had now been surpassed,² and on a per capita basis it was two-thirds above pre-war. A trade agreement concluded with the Soviet Union early in 1948 had ensured the importation of investment goods to the value of £112,000,000. In general, trade with the Soviet Union had risen from 0.4 per cent in 1938 to 21.5 per cent in 1948; and trade with her and the other countries of planned economy now accounted for over a third (37.8 per cent) of [the Polish People’s Republic’s] total foreign trade.

        Page 130:

        Much the largest piece of industrial construction listed for the Six-Year Plan was the great steel combine of Nowa Huta (‘New Foundry’), near Cracow. Deliberately planted in the most poverty-stricken and probably the most traditional-minded province in Poland, a region of dwarf farms, the new ‘socialist city’ when completed was to house 100,000 persons.³

        Another characteristic note was that the entire equipment of the foundry and its related works had been furnished out of the proceeds of the 1948 long-time investment loan granted Poland by the Soviet Union, and that all the major parts were actual imports from the Soviet Union, complete with all their technical documentation.

        Pages 310–311:

        The Polish–Soviet Trade and Investment Agreement of January 1948 referred to above by the Economic Commission for Europe, was stressed in after years by the Poles as a landmark in their industrial history. Besides providing for the exchange of goods, it extended to [the Polish People’s Republic] credits for great amounts of industrial equipment to be sent during 1948–56. Payment was to be over a period of ten years, chiefly in goods, at 3 per cent interest.

        This credit, the Poles later stressed, was the largest that Poland had ever received. The investment credit amounted to some £112,000,000, and enabled [the Polish People’s Republic] to start carrying out her Six-Year Plan in more than thirty industrial branches. The investment goods were destined for plants of both heavy and light industry.

        In heavy industry the Poles made much of the new steel plant of Nowa Huta that, when completed, was to double the country’s existing steel capacity: they pointed out that it was wholly Soviet financed and was built mainly on Soviet deliveries.

        The next most important items were several large chemical factories. Pre-war Poland had had no chemical industry. In light industry the Poles made a dramatic showing of the Soviet Union’s contribution in 1951 by having a series of plants in different parts of the country start production within a few days of each other close to 7 November.

        These included a factory producing the first passenger motor-car in Poland, a new lorry factory, a new textile factory, and a large transporter for the mechanical loading of ships. Ail of these, the press emphasized at the time, had been not only Soviet financed, but had been erected on the basis of Soviet plans and machines and with the aid of Soviet specialists.

        In 1950 [the Polish People’s Republic] received further increase of credit from the Soviet Union. By the close of 1951 not all of this had as yet been used. The new agreement to run from 1953–8 provided that nearly 40 per cent of all Soviet exports to [the PPR] would be capital goods.

        The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance

        For the smaller planned economies plainly a double process had been at work. From the Soviet Union came major investment credits, technical equipment and industrial raw materials, as well as, especially in times of stress, grains and feeding stuffs.

        Page 359:

        Assistance from Soviet specialists was used. And technical delegations of all sorts from the two countries visited the Soviet Union. The Polish Government, stated President Bierut at the end of 1950, in discussing innovations under the Six-Year Plan, had asked for and received the services for several months of groups of Soviet specialists.

        ‘The Soviet specialists made an analysis of our Plan in those branches which are of foremost importance to us: coal, metallurgy, machinery, chemicals, and power; they gave exceptionally valuable advice to our engineers and industrial managers; they corrected individual mistakes and made important suggestions. […]’

        He added, significantly enough, a note on personal contacts: ‘In the course of exchange of professional views and experience. […] Polish engineers and industrial managers […] were thus able to become acquainted with the talents, science, and style of work of a new intelligentsia. […]’¹

        Several different notes were struck in regard to the interdependent progress of the planned economies. Emphasis was laid, as above, upon Soviet aid.

        [Click here for further examples of communist reconstruction.]

        Pages 40 & 46:

        The writer in 1948 saw the salvaged farm and industrial equipment in use once more, restored with great patience and ingenuity, the buildings going up with enormous use of hand labour, new heavy machinery of Polish manufacture beginning to fill the half‐reconstructed factories, and industrial products emerging at the other end. […] The dominant political patter of the 1945–7 period was undoubtedly formed by the Communists quite as much as the Socialists.

        Pages 50–51:

        In order to accelerate agricultural rehabilitation of the country and to satisfy the Polish peasants’ age‐old hunger for land, the Polish Committee of National Liberation will immediately proceed to carry into effect, in the liberated territories, agrarian reforms on a large scale.

        Page 57:

        In addition, general co-operates of a new type were looked to, to furnish social amenities in the country-side and to protect their members against speculation and fraud. Mentioned in only the most general terms in the Reconstruction Plan, this type of organization subsequently had a rapid and important growth.

        In handicraft and small industry production, the co‐operative sector had the advantage of a post‐war start: ownerless small enterprises were sometimes turned over to co‐operative groups, among them often the remnants of the surviving Jewish population.

        Quoting Sultan Barakat’s Russia’s Approach to Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The History, Context, and its effect on Ukraine, page 40:

        And, “[immediately] after the end of the war, the USSR transferred 15% of the German reparation payments to Poland. The amount was equal to the U.S. assistance to France under the Marshall Plan” (Zatsarin, 2016).

        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:

        Khrushchev […] stopped deliveries at prices which were not always able to cover the costs of transport (between 1945 and 1954 Poland delivered 50 million tons of coal at a price of 1.28 U.S. dollars per ton, which was only one-tenth of the price [that] it could have had on the world market). Khrushchev was willing to write off a portion of the credits granted from the books as repayment for the damage caused, including 3.2 billion złotys and 22.3 million U.S. dollars of Poland’s debt.

        • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          A trade agreement concluded with the Soviet Union early in 1948 had ensured the importation of investment goods to the value of £112,000,000. In general, trade with the Soviet Union had risen from 0.4 per cent in 1938 to 21.5 per cent in 1948; and trade with her and the other countries of planned economy now accounted for over a third (37.8 per cent) of [the Polish People’s Republic’s] total foreign trade

          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.

          The next most important items were several large chemical factories. Pre-war Poland had had no chemical industry

          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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              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?

              Poland depended quite heavily on the USSR and was integrated into socialist trade, which worked remarkably well for developing Poland

              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?

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                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.

                Can you imagine an argument that would convince you that you’re wrong? What would that argument be?

                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.

                • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  ect, but at the same time it doesn’t mean abandoning socialism was the correct move.

                  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).

                  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.

                  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).

                  on real industrial development

                  Financed on loans Poland was forced to make that made sure the Poland was not self sustainable.

                  You’re taking the wording of Poland having “no” chemical industry in the context of

                  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.

                  However, on the things we can both agree on as fact, we utterly disagree on interpretation.

                  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?

                  tangents then perhaps I would be able to be swayed by you.

                  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)

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    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.

                    The instability of growth I dismiss as immaterial. Why is growth supposed to be stable?

                    Growth being unstable points to problems with the economy, slumps, overproduction and other inefficiencies.

                    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).

                    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.

                    Financed on loans Poland was forced to make that made sure the Poland was not self sustainable.

                    Poland and the USSR were both devastated by war. There were certianly economic problems, but this is not a case of colonialism.

                    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.

                    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 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?

                    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.

                    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)

                    Strikes in Poland does not equate to an absolute desire to erase socialism in Poland. As Parenti said:

                    During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

                    You genuflect to orthodoxy.