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.
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.
Neither theory nor science should be gatekept, but that doesn't mean studying both aren't still necessary.
Oh absolutely, that's probably why they aren't mining the strait but just blasting those that try.
Modern poland has private ownership as its principle aspect, and capitalists in control of the state. Did you read my prior comment at all? Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is principle and the working classes in charge of the state, as I already said. You then pivoted to questions of quality of life, which is improving in China. Poland dropped in quality of life for most people after the dissolution of socialism in the immediate, and in the long run the poor in Poland are worse off than they were in socialism.
Why do you bother replying if you aren't going to engage with the points I make?
Massive China and Russia win here.
Reading theory helps teach us how to best make that a reality.
Both will be less effective than someone that balances both. It isn't either-or, but both/and.
No, you can't counterpoint anything that I wrote. China is already socialist, it isn't going to become socialist because it already is. China has worker protections, and the lives of the working classes have been improving year over year. This is extreme cope on your part, and your refusal to engage with my points because they cleanly and clearly refute yours is just dishonesty.
Stupid but effective test I have leftover from my gaming days. Write Tiananmen Square (Massacre) before I interact with you any further.
Why? The 1989 Beijing riots didn't take place on the square itself, which was evacuated bloodlessly.
In 2011, three secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing from the time of the events were leaked and published by WikiLeaks, all of which stated that there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square itself.[185] Instead, they said Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters in Beijing outside the square, around Muxidi station, as they fought their way from the west towards the centre.[185] A Chilean diplomat who had been positioned next to a Red Cross station inside the square told his US counterparts that he did not observe any mass firing of weapons into the crowds in the square itself, although sporadic gunfire was heard. He said that most of the troops who entered the square were armed only with anti-riot gear.[185][207]
Per wikipedia. There were hundreds of killings around Beijing, none of which happened on the square itself.
Can you actually engage with my points, rather than dodge them?
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.
You can't read a revolution into existence, but you can't have a successful revolution without properly preparing for it and studying revolution. You wouldn't want someone to perform surgery just because they want to help, they will almost certainly end up doing more harm than good. Revolution is the same way, we stand against the most brutal global system of imperialism, we must be prepared for it!
If anyone wants a place to start with theory, I wrote a new basic Marxist-Leninist study guide. Give it a look!
The protests and riots in Beijing in 1989 were multi-faceted. Among the protestors were hard-line Maoists that supported the older Gang of Four, while being accompanied by students that sought liberalization of the economy and an end to the rural subsidies equalizing rural and urban development. This was further agitated by western elements pushing for regime change.
It's Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and it's still dominated by the proletariat. Public ownership is the principle aspect of China's economy, and capitalists are held on a tight leash to focus on developing the productive forces. The large firms and key industries in China are publicly owned, it's only the small and medium firms that are private.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principle aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn't been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People's Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn't steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing's faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized:
Deng's plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China's rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a "love/hate" relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC's gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
It's not about "ducks quacking" or any of that vibes-based analysis, but consistent materialist analysis.
The USSR was a socialist federation of countries, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state.
I'm suggesting that growth is uneven, to even flatlining at periods. This is a consequence of the adoption of capitalism.
And yet we know poverty spiked massively after the dissolution of socialism in Poland. It's only recently that it has recovered, though this has been growing recently.
You’re confusing my critique that USSR sucked for Poland with your imagination that means I must love capitalism?
You're batting pretty hard for capitalism and against socialism.
Are you both stupid? I figured how you calculated that. You both took a look at the “Polish GDP in USD” and compared.
In 2007 USD to PLN was ~2.77 exchange rate.
In 2008 it was ~2.41 because USA had recession.
In 2015 it was ~3.4 because USA is again corporating and stealing.
Amazing, Poland is getting dominated by foreign capital just like it was before it was socialist and somehow that's not connected to it being capitalist again for you.
Prove it. You make wild claims, prove them.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PL
Also I’m curious what you think about China then since they gave up on communism if favour of their current flavour of capitalism leeching off of worker class
The PRC is a socialist country, they never gave up on communism. Public ownership remains the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes remain in charge of the state. The PRC is rapidly rising thanks to socialism, while capitalist states in the global north are dying away. Pretty positive about the PRC, though like every state it's imperfect.
I don't believe it does either, though, just that one issue is primary.
I'm aware, though I expect the US Empire to go out with a whimper, rather than a bang.
Flu when social safety nets took such a dramatic hit is still contributable to the dissolution of socialism, as it's extremely likely they would have otherwise lived.
I'm not referring to the idea of "primitive vs. advanced," but the understanding of socialism as a higher developed mode of production than capitalism. It doesn't exist because some European thought of it, but because the mode of production had developed to a point where it could be observed as a natural trend. Eastern Marxism is entirely compatible with this idea, and while Marx's ideas and writings are core to them, Eastern Marxists did not abandon their entire history.
As for linguistics and Marxism, here's a brief page with further reading if you like.
This is bullshit based on vibes. I'll state it again: The PRC is socialist because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. The PRC is not a gig economy, 996 is a problem but doesn't mean it isn't socialist, and the NPC is controlled by the proletariat.
Yep, the PRC is governed by the proletariat.
Repeating again how I categorized socialism: The PRC is socialist because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. When I said China has worker protections, that was a response to your cope about "996" and other nonsense, not a way to say China is socialist.
It isn't a requirement to be socialist, and I never said it was. It took several comments for you to understand that my source was an economist's review of a work of fiction and not the work of fiction itself, and now you keep pretending I'm defining socialism by saying it has safety nets despite my insistence on the mode of production. Why are you so consistent with butchering my points? Respond to the actual points I make.