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.
No, don’t hyperbolize. This isn’t your narrative.
No. It was everyone in the free Poland. We were rebelling constantly under USSR occupation.
No. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=PL&start=1985 But we do see foreign corporations leeching from us and actively enshittifying. The home ownership rate is decreasing.
That depends what you mean by far right. I’d call the current political landscape of Poland as right-centrist PO in coalition with centrists (the rest of the coalition) vs (oppositon) right-centrist PiS with (growing) republican-clone Konfederacja
No, it was not “everyone in the free Poland.” Many Polish people opposed the dissolution of socialism. Further, disparity in Poland is high, and the foreign companies plundering Poland is a direct consequence of the dissolution of socialism, purging of the left, and the dominance of the far-right.
??? We’re famously the only country in the EU that wasn’t affected by it. Please be critical of what you read.
What a garbage article you sent here.
I literally send you a credible source that shows its similar to 1985 year. Are you saying that it was high during USSR occupation or ignoring the source?
From the source linked:
Why was Polish GDP flatlining? Why did millions leave Poland?
Not only is the gini coefficient misleading, but it only goes back to 1985 in your source. Upon the adoption of capitalism, Poland has had unstable growth to even flatlining, is now being sold out to foreign companies, and again, has purged its left in favor of the far-right.
You’re confusing my critique that USSR sucked for Poland with your imagination that means I must love capitalism?
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.
This is GDP, but adjusted for PPP (PPP = how much shit we can buy locally) for Poland:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=PL&start=1990
Did not go down in 2008.
The idiot you’re quoting would have to compare, p25, p50 and p90 income adjusted for inflation between those years, which they didn’t. And if they did, they’d notice it was up. The only dip we had in 2022.
Prove it. You make wild claims, prove them.
(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)
You’re batting pretty hard for capitalism and against socialism.
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.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PL
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.
You’re confusing USSR with being a socialist country. I’m batting against USSR.
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.
https://jacobin.com/2019/06/tiananmen-square-worker-organization-socialist-democracy
So I assume the Tiananmen Square protests (also) against leaving communism and implementing capitalistic worker class leeching did not happen in your world?
I mean they can call themselves whatever they want, but their duck quacks eerily similarly to the capitalistic duck. At least according to the people who went through their reforms into current state?
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.
I can counterpoint all that you wrote simply by asking you… What is China gig economy size? What are the labour protections for the gig workers? If there are none, then it’s pure exploitation of worker class for the wealthy and I’d argue that invalidates all your lofty claims about being socialist at heart (or in the future. “Someday”, also trademarked). Why is the population nationalistic? What happened to anti-imperialism - was it just redefined to mean anti-west lol? What is the current percentage representation of farmers and workers in the Congress and why is it nosediving?
Stupid but effective test I have leftover from my gaming days. Write Tiananmen Square (Massacre) before I interact with you any further.
This is GDP growth in percentage compared to last year… Are you suggesting it should grow up by more percent every year?
I’m suggesting that growth is uneven, to even flatlining at periods. This is a consequence of the adoption of capitalism.