USSR standard of living compared to other Eastern Block countries

[communard resolution]

The standard of living in the Soviet Union was a lot better than in some other Eastern Block countries such as Poland. My Polish father would say "because we were a USSR satellite and they exploited us like a colony. They had it better at our expense."

I suppose that was the popular opinion in Poland and other Warsaw Pact countries at the time. To what extent do you think this this true? How else do you explain the economic differences between the USSR and other Eastern Block countries?

[Vanguardian]

The standard of living in the Soviet Union was a lot better than in some other Eastern Block countries such as Poland. My Polish father would say "because we were a USSR satellite and they exploited us like a colony. They had it better at our expense."

I suppose that was the popular opinion in Poland and other Warsaw Pact countries at the time. To what extent do you think this this true? How else do you explain the economic differences between the USSR and other Eastern Block communist countries?

These are contra-revolutionary lies. In fact, USSR paid huge aid to socialist little brother nations.

Socialism is not about standard of life, but about cleansing yourself and your people from evil force of alienation!

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

[communard resolution]

These are contra-revolutionary lies. In fact, USSR paid huge aid to socialist little brother nations.

Socialism is not about standard of life, but about cleansing yourself and your people from evil force of alienation!

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

Vanguardian, by now everybody knows you're a troll. Please don't wreck every single thread, thank you.

[RedAnarchist]

Vanguardian, by now everybody knows you're a troll. Please don't wreck every single thread, thank you.

Just report his posts.

[3A CCCP]

The standard of living in the Soviet Union was a lot better than in some other Eastern Block countries such as Poland. My Polish father would say "because we were a USSR satellite and they exploited us like a colony. They had it better at our expense."

I suppose that was the popular opinion in Poland and other Warsaw Pact countries at the time. To what extent do you think this this true? How else do you explain the economic differences between the USSR and other Eastern Block communist countries?

The sentiments expressed by your father sound to me to be typically Polish and coming from a posture that is more nationalistic and anti-Russian, than anti-Communist.

First of all, the Poles and Russians have had no love for each other for centuries. This is based on the peoples of these two countries being propagandized and taught to hate each other by their Polish Pans and Russian Tsars. Their masters needed them to hate each other so they could be exploited to fight for more territory for the "glory of Poland" or the "glory of the Russian Empire."

Secondly, the myth about the USSR exploiting the Warsaw Pact nations was propagated by the West. I had been to Poland and the German Democratic Republic during the Cold War (albeit, only for a couple of weeks) and had lived in the Soviet Union for a long time. To be quite frank, in general I thought that the Poles had a somewhat higher standard of living than the Soviet people.

However, one has to consider what part of each country you are talking about. A Soviet citizen in Moscow had a higher standard of living than a Polish citizen in the smaller cities of Poland. On the other hand, it was about the same as the standard of living in Warsaw. And, the standard of living in Warsaw was much better than in the smaller cities of the Soviet Union.

This propaganda regarding Soviet "imperialism" and "exploitation" of the Warsaw Pact nations is just that, anti-Soviet propaganda of the United States and the West (that was conveniently adopted by the Chinese after they had their falling out with the USSR and Khrushchev's revisionism).

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[communard resolution]

Mikhail,

maybe I should have pointed out that I was born in Warsaw and spent my childhood there. The standard of living was absolutely atrocious! I remember starving more than once as a kid because there wasn't enough bread - I queued for four or five hours and was then sent home to my parents empty-handed. I'm talking late 70s up until 1981, which is when we left. One winter, they turned off the gas for months, which led to my little brother's near freezing to death - I'm not certain whether that was down to an energy crisis or a deliberate attempt to intimidate and demoralize the population in the course of the early 80s strikes and protests, but I can ask my dad about it when I see him. I have very vivid memories of this (I posted about it on an earlier thread). This was Warsaw, not the countryside, and if this was a higher standard of living than in the USSR, then I don't want to know what the standard in the USSR was. I mean, it doesn't get much worse than starvation, does it?

You've got a point with Polish/Russian nationalism. There was no love lost between the two for centuries. The Polish hated both Germans and Russians because they had always been subjugated to either German or Russian rule. So there's a chance that my father's opinions were saturated with patriotic/nationalist feelings. I'm not sure if it's down to "Western propaganda" cause he wouldn't have had access to that, at worst it was a knee-jerk gut reaction based on the Polish experience.

I'm taking your points into account, but I still believe that the standard of living in the USSR was vastly superior to what I experienced in Poland, and my Bulgarian friends told me similar things about their country during communism. As for myself, I hold no anti-Russian sentiments at all (on the contrary!), but I would still like to know the possible reasons for the discrepancies between the Soviet Union and other Eastern Block states.

[3A CCCP]

Mikhail,

maybe I should have pointed out that I was born in Warsaw and spent my childhood there. The standard of living was absolutely atrocious! I remember starving more than once as a kid because there wasn't enough bread - I queued for four or five hours and was then sent home to my parents empty-handed. I'm talking late 70s up until 1981, which is when we left. One winter, they turned off the gas for months, which led to my little brother's near freezing to death - I'm not certain whether that was down to an energy crisis or a deliberate attempt to intimidate and demoralize the population in the course of the early 80s strikes and protests, but I can ask my dad about it when I see him. I have very vivid memories of this (I posted about it on an earlier thread). This was Warsaw, not the countryside, and if this was a higher standard of living than in the USSR, then I don't want to know what the standard in the USSR was. I mean, it doesn't get much worse than starvation, does it?

You've got a point with Polish/Russian nationalism. There was no love lost between the two for centuries. The Polish hated both Germans and Russians because they had always been subjugated to either German or Russian rule. So there's a chance that my father's opinions were saturated with patriotic/nationalist feelings. I'm not sure if it's down to "Western propaganda" cause he wouldn't have had access to that, at worst it was a knee-jerk gut reaction based on the Polish experience.

I'm taking your points into account, but I still believe that the standard of living in the USSR was vastly superior to what I experienced in Poland, and my Bulgarian friends told me similar things about their country during communism. As for myself, I hold no anti-Russian sentiments at all (on the contrary!), but I would still like to know the possible reasons for the discrepancies between the Soviet Union and other Eastern Block states.


As I mentioned, I had been in Warsaw for only two weeks and the same for the GDR. So, my experience is miniscule compared to yours regarding conditions in Poland.

The 1970s were by far the best years as far as living conditions in the USSR. Any person who lived in the Soviet Union will confirm this. Why this discrepancy that you describe existed between Poland and the USSR I honestly can't say.

However, I do not believe it had to do with exploitation of Poland by the USSR. Logically, what was there to exploit? The Soviet Union had enough natural resources to live in isolation from the West forever. By the 1970s they had rebuilt most of the factories and plants that the Nazis had destroyed. What rationale would there be to exploit Poland and the other Warsaw Pact countries?

The fact that they could have helped them more is another matter.
But, this is not exploitation.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[communard resolution]

As I mentioned, I had been in Warsaw for only two weeks and the same for the GDR.The economic conditions in the GDR were actually much better than in Poland, I completely forgot about that country. As for food, they weren't really short of anything - except maybe bananas, which I guess aren't that essential.


The 1970s were by far the best years as far as living conditions in the USSR.You reckon Khrushchev was doing something right after all?


What rationale would there be to exploit Poland and the other Warsaw Pact countries?None that I can think of. Judging by what I know about the bunch of parasites that were the Polish regime, I wouldn't be surprised if the exploitation was really all down to them rather than anything to do with the USSR. Still, I wanted to see if anyone could bring up any facts to back my father's claim.


The fact that they could have helped them more is another matter.I understand that Jaruzelski declared martial law in '81 primarily to prevent the Soviet military from entering Poland and reinstating order their way (Prague Spring style). Given the nature of the Polish 'communist' regime, maybe we would have been better off had the Soviets entered. Maybe not.

[3A CCCP]

The economic conditions in the GDR were actually much better than in Poland, I completely forgot about that country. As for food, they weren't really short of anything - except maybe bananas, which I guess aren't that essential.

Don't feel bad, because I think I was mixing up what I saw in the GDR with Poland. Although, as a tourist in each country for two weeks in the late spring my insight was still limited in any case.

You reckon Khrushchev was doing something right after all?

Nikita was given his walking papers in 1964 after humiliating the Soviet Union by his cowardice in backing down to Kennedy and pulling our missiles out of Cuba (thus, leaving our ally unable to protect itself from a possible U.S. missile attack). Leonid Brezhnev was at the helm during the "golden years."

The continued upsurge of the Soviet economy had nothing to do with anything Brezhnev or Khrushchev did one way or the other. In fact, the way comrade Stalin had set up the economic system it kind of ran on auto-pilot during Khrushchev's tenure and continued to gain forward moment under Brezhnev despite any tinkering that may have occured.

In fact, contrary to the widespread belief in the West and on this list, the Soviet economy continued to rise and expand at a good pace right up until the mid-eighties when Gorbachev took over and began his sabotage of the system. The photos and news reel clips that show long lines at stores are usually taken from the 1950s and 1960s when the results of the Great Patriotic War were still very visible. The long lines returned during the late 1980s when the results of Gorbachev's sabotage of the economy was beginning to become evident.

None that I can think of. Judging by what I know about the bunch of parasites that were the Polish regime, I wouldn't be surprised if the exploitation was really all down to them rather than anything to do with the USSR. Still, I wanted to see if anyone could bring up any facts to back my father's claim.

I think you might be correct here. I want to analyze this some more.

I understand that Jaruzelski declared martial law in '81 primarily to prevent the Soviet military from entering Poland and reinstating order their way (Prague Spring style). Given the nature of the Polish 'communist' regime, maybe we would have been better off had the Soviets entered. Maybe not.
Again, I think you may be correct. I'd like to talk to study on this. It is a good question.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why didn't Poland become a Soviet Republic, thereby restoring the Soviet Union, more or less, to the Russian Empire's borders (more Poland, but no Finland)? Also, why didn't Bulgaria and its sycophantic government join?

[Random Precision]

Why didn't Poland become a Soviet Republic, thereby restoring the Soviet Union, more or less, to the Russian Empire's borders (more Poland, but no Finland)? Also, why didn't Bulgaria and its sycophantic government join?

Stalin promised his imperialist buddies Churchill and Roosevelt that free elections would be held for an independent Poland at the Yalta Conference. Also, I think that the Stalinist leaders of Poland probably thought they would have more legitimacy in the eyes of their people if they at least had the appearance of being independent of Moscow. But Poland joining the USSR was never something that was seriously considered by the leaders of either country.

So, would you care to enlighten us as to why you're so gung-ho about Soviet imperialism? Why would it be so great to restore the Russian Empire's borders?

[3A CCCP]

Stalin promised his imperialist buddies Churchill and Roosevelt that free elections would be held for an independent Poland at the Yalta Conference. Also, I think that the Stalinist leaders of Poland probably thought they would have more legitimacy in the eyes of their people if they at least had the appearance of being independent of Moscow. But Poland joining the USSR was never something that was seriously considered by the leaders of either country.

So, would you care to enlighten us as to why you're so gung-ho about Soviet imperialism? Why would it be so great to restore the Russian Empire's borders?

First of all, how do you figure that Churchill and Roosevelt were comrade Stalin's "imperialist buddies?" Because they fought on the same side against the Nazis? When Churchill was told that the U.S. had the atom bomb he wanted Truman to use it against the Soviet Union. Some buddy!

Also, this is off topic. The thread is about the standard of living in the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations.

I can see that the anti-Stalin crowd is going to ruin an interesting thread.

Comrade Caligula Z, I would be happy to continue this conversation with you off-list. You brought up a number of interesting points that I want to investigate further. Unfortunately, the last post by Random Precision is probably just the beginning of the anti-Stalin diatribes that are to come if the usual revleft scenario unfolds. No matter what topic one discusses around here someone has got to make a wise ass remark about comrade Stalin.

I'm dropping out of this thread. It was a pleasure discussing the original topic with a Polish comrade that was born and raised there.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[3A CCCP]

Why didn't Poland become a Soviet Republic, thereby restoring the Soviet Union, more or less, to the Russian Empire's borders (more Poland, but no Finland)? Also, why didn't Bulgaria and its sycophantic government join?

Jacob, what has this got to do with the topic of this thread and the questions being discussed??? Congratulations on giving Random Precision the opportunity to make a wise ass remark about comrade Stalin! This thread is about to sink into the usual revleft anti-Stalin rant.

I'm out of this one!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also, I think that the Stalinist leaders of Poland probably thought they would have more legitimacy in the eyes of their people if they at least had the appearance of being independent of Moscow. But Poland joining the USSR was never something that was seriously considered by the leaders of either country.

So, would you care to enlighten us as to why you're so gung-ho about Soviet imperialism? Why would it be so great to restore the Russian Empire's borders?

Well, the original purpose of the Soviet Union was to be a global state, encompassing Mongolia, eastern Europe, Finland, and what not. :D

[Random Precision]

Well, the original purpose of the Soviet Union was to be a global state, encompassing Mongolia, eastern Europe, Finland, and what not.

Yes, but that was before the bureaucratic degeneration which made the USSR a state-capitalist and imperialist nation. I don't see why the Great-Russian imperialist leadership should have been given an opportunity to completely subjugate more non-Russian peoples.

@ 3A CCCP: Loosen the fuck up.

[Lamanov]

That's all true. USSR exploited Eastern European countries as their colonies. Examples:

- Romania: 1947-56 the period of SovRom "joint companies"; this was a legal way of exploiting the country's resources: Soviets took estimated 2 billion USD through these companies (not counting war reparations).

- Bulgaria: by not allowing the Marshall Plan USSR could have taken a monopoly of country's foreign trade: for example, they bought Bulgarian tobacco for very small amount of rubles in order to sell it to Italy for American dollars.

- Poland: 16th August 1945, in coal mining trade agreement, Soviets got the upper hand, and in this way they turned anual profit of over 100 million USD.

- Hungary: probably the worst case; war reparations were 200 million USD high, and even though pre-war Hungarian industrial production was only 25%, Soviets demanded reparations to be paid off by 83% in industrial goods. Besides that, "Red Army" simply packed up industrial machinery worth some 124 million USD and shipped it off to USSR.

[communard resolution]

Also, I think that the Stalinist leaders of Poland probably thought they would have more legitimacy in the eyes of their people if they at least had the appearance of being independent of Moscow.The economic discrepancies between the Eastern Block countries seem to imply that these countries were in fact more independent of Moscow than is commonly assumed. So far, we've established that the standard of living in Poland was vastly inferior to the USSR. But if the USSR really exploited all its 'satellite states', how come that the standard of living in the GDR, for instance, was a lot better compared to Poland? This is a complex matter that would require some real insider knowledge on who was really 'pulling the strings' in the individual Warsaw Pact states. Obviously, it will be very hard to get this information, so at present all I can do is evaluate the few hints that I have been given here and there. Hard facts are needed, and I encourage everybody who has any to post them in this thread.

Here are some thoughts: as I mentioned in an earlier post, Jaruzelski stated that his primary reason for declaring martial law in '81 was to prevent the Soviets from invading and reinstating order as they had done in Prague in 1968. If Poland was really just a Soviet puppet state following Moscow's orders, why was Jaruzelski so hellbent on keeping the Soviets out?
Given the corrupt and parasitic nature of the Polish 'communist' regime, I don't believe for a second this was a noble act of patriotism designed to protect us Poles (as Jaruzelski made it out to be post-PRL). More likely, Jaruzelski and his gangster buddies had some real interests to protect and didn't want the Soviet Union to spoil the broth.

This leads me to think that the USSR were ready and willing to impose their Veto whenever pro-West movements threatened to install capitalism in Warsaw Pact countries, but otherwise kept themselves to themselves. In the case of Poland, it stands to reason whether the latter was a good thing or not.

Since the 90s, some far-right Polish nationalists have come to express sympathy for Jaruzelski's 'communist' regime and his 1981 decision to declare martial law in particular, claiming the PRL had been "truly National Socialist". A minor yet symptomatic expression of this was the song 'Dziekujemy' by fascist skinhead band Sztorm 68 ("68" referring to 1968's antisemitic campaign initiated by Polish Minister of Interior Moczar), in which the band thank Jaruzelski in hindsight for having declared martial law in '81 and thus having protected Poland from the "Soviet Jews" - another hint?

On an off-topic note in regards to Stalin: I'm not one to religiously defend Stalin and everything he has ever done, but one thing strikes me as odd: when the focus is on Stalin's doctrine of 'socialism in one country' - which I understand was a concession to the Soviet people's being exhausted from war - people will call him a traitor to the idea of International Communism. But whenever he did try to spread socialism to other countries, the same people call him a Soviet Imperialist. How does that work? It strikes me as doublethink, and I would be curious to hear what exactly he was supposed to do in your opinion.

[communard resolution]

Mikhail,

please let's not give up on this thread just yet. DJ-TC has just brought up some figures that I think are are worth discussing further.



First of all, how do you figure that Churchill and Roosevelt were comrade Stalin's "imperialist buddies?" Because they fought on the same side against the Nazis? When Churchill was told that the U.S. had the atom bomb he wanted Truman to use it against the Soviet Union. Some buddy!

Also, this is off topic. The thread is about the standard of living in the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations.

I can see that the anti-Stalin crowd is going to ruin an interesting thread.

Comrade Caligula Z, I would be happy to continue this conversation with you off-list. You brought up a number of interesting points that I want to investigate further. Unfortunately, the last post by Random Precision is probably just the beginning of the anti-Stalin diatribes that are to come if the usual revleft scenario unfolds. No matter what topic one discusses around here someone has got to make a wise ass remark about comrade Stalin.

I'm dropping out of this thread. It was a pleasure discussing the original topic with a Polish comrade that was born and raised there.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[3A CCCP]

Mikhail,

please let's not give up on this thread just yet. DJ-TC has just brought up some figures that I think are are worth discussing further.

Comrade:

OK, we'll stick with this thread as long as long as we can stay on topic!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[3A CCCP]

That's all true. USSR exploited Eastern European countries as their colonies. Examples:

- Romania: 1947-56 the period of SovRom "joint companies"; this was a legal way of exploiting the country's resources: Soviets took estimated 2 billion USD through these companies (not counting war reparations).

- Bulgaria: by not allowing the Marshall Plan USSR could have taken a monopoly of country's foreign trade: for example, they bought Bulgarian tobacco for very small amount of rubles in order to sell it to Italy for American dollars.

- Poland: 16th August 1945, in coal mining trade agreement, Soviets got the upper hand, and in this way they turned anual profit of over 100 million USD.

- Hungary: probably the worst case; war reparations were 200 million USD high, and even though pre-war Hungarian industrial production was only 25%, Soviets demanded reparations to be paid off by 83% in industrial goods. Besides that, "Red Army" simply packed up industrial machinery worth some 124 million USD and shipped it off to USSR.

It is interesting the way you harp on "war reparations" levied against Hungary and Romania by the USSR. Both nations actively participated in WW II on Germany's side and had large numbers of troops on Soviet soil fighting alongside the Nazis against the Red Army and the Soviet people. The Hungarian and Romanian troops were utilized by the Nazis right up to the Battle of Stalingrad. I assume you consider that this was OK and should be ignored even though Hungary and Romania were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens and huge material damage to the USSR?

You state that the Soviet Union took in 2 billion dollars through the SovRom joint venture companies during the period of 1947-1956. What was the gross take by the Romanian side of the joint venture?

"Marshal Plan #2" was launched in Eastern Europe after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the results are plain for everyone to see today: the reestablishement of capitalism, poverty, unemployment, disease, and degradation of the people.

The original Marshal Plan was touted as aid to war torn Europe, but was actually a means for the U.S. to gain influence over the economies and governments of Europe. Bulgaria was not the only country that did not take part in the plan. None of the future Warsaw Pact nations participated, including the Soviet Union.

You state that the Soviet Union got the "upper hand in a coal mining agreement with Poland and turned a profit of 100 million dollars a year." What do you mean by the "upper hand?" What are the details of the contract? What did Poland get and what did the USSR get?

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[3A CCCP]

On an off-topic note in regards to Stalin: I'm not one to religiously defend Stalin and everything he has ever done, but one thing strikes me as odd: when the focus is on Stalin's doctrine of 'socialism in one country' - which I understand was a concession to the Soviet people's being exhausted from war - people will call him a traitor to the idea of International Communism. But whenever he did try to spread socialism to other countries, the same people call him a Soviet Imperialist. How does that work? It strikes me as doublethink, and I would be curious to hear what exactly he was supposed to do in your opinion.

Very well stated, comrade!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I grew up in Romania, which was of course semi-detached from the Warsaw Pact and CMEA during the 70s and 80s, so I don't think my experience can shed any light on the issue. There is, however, one important point that hasn't been discussed:

During the 1970s, Ceausescu's government took massive loans from the IMF and other capitalist financial institutions, which he used to finance a period of prosperity (the 1970s are also remembered in Romania as a "golden age"). However, things started going downhill as soon as it became necessary to pay off the loans. Throughout the 1980s, an increasingly larger share of Romania's industrial and agricultural production was being diverted to pay off the external debt. This resulted in extreme hardship, poverty and deprivation - after 1984, basic food became hard to find, although there was no real decline in the production of food. It was just that so much of it was being exported.

I've heard that other Warsaw Pact countries also took similar loans and had to repay them. Perhaps that might be part of the reason for the economic hardship in these countries?

Does anyone know of any good books on the economic situation of CMEA countries?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, to be fair, in spite of these harsh war reparations, since Khrushchev the USSR had subsidized trade deficits with Warsaw Pact countries.


On an off-topic note in regards to Stalin: I'm not one to religiously defend Stalin and everything he has ever done, but one thing strikes me as odd: when the focus is on Stalin's doctrine of 'socialism in one country' - which I understand was a concession to the Soviet people's being exhausted from war - people will call him a traitor to the idea of International Communism. But whenever he did try to spread socialism to other countries, the same people call him a Soviet Imperialist. How does that work? It strikes me as doublethink, and I would be curious to hear what exactly he was supposed to do in your opinion.

It's the way "Comrade" Stalin did it. Assuming SIOC was a necessity in the Soviet Union, why did it become an autarkic virtue for each and every single f****** satellite state??? Soviet history books boasted about how Central Asia "skipped capitalism" with Russian help during the industrialization drive. Why couldn't the satellite states become Soviet Republics???

That it took Brezhnev to put more meat into the COMECON (economic integration) and abandon the idiocy of SIOC in Eastern Europe says A LOT.

[communard resolution]

Why couldn't the satellite states become Soviet Republics???

Did they want to?

[Colonello Buendia]

The original Marshal Plan was touted as aid to war torn Europe, but was actually a means for the U.S. to gain influence over the economies and governments of Europe. Bulgaria was not the only country that did not take part in the plan. None of the future Warsaw Pact nations participated, including the Soviet Union.



3A CCCP!
Mikhail
this is a really good point. my dad was a kid in the marshal plan times and remembers that a large part of it resulted in the disempowerment of the communists. another anecdote of my fathers, he worked with the olympic wrestling team and for some reason or another ended up in the eastern block for events. He said that from what he saw, conditions for the people were much better than in America though there was less freedom of press and speech. this is anecdotal

PS not to dissapoint 3ACCCP, Stalin was bad and he betrayed communism :P

[hekmatista]

Obviously various workers' states would try to integrate their economies in order to minimize redundancy and improve living standards. Here's the rub: with a few exceptions, most posters on Revleft (notably excepting 3A CCCP, Unicorn, and a few others) belong to (or identify with) Maoist, Hoxhaite, Trotskyist, Left or Council Communist, "back to Marx"ist, etc. tendencies. One of the few things those tendencies ALL agree with is that the post 1961 party congress USSR was hardly a model of a workers' state, whether describing it as "degenerated," "bureaucratic collectivist," "revisionist," or "state capitalist." These are vastly differing analyses and assessments of a historical phenomenon, of course, and I am not for a moment suggesting that they all come to the same thing ("USSR at least in our own lifetime, was a pile of shit"). But they would, I think, all agree that exploitation of dependent nations was at least theoretically possible for the post-1961 Soviet Union. We need more data on who benefitted and who lost out from economic relations within the Comecon and its precursors.

[3A CCCP]

Jacob wrote: "Why couldn't the satellite states become Soviet Republics???"


Did they want to?

The only Eastern Bloc nation that wanted to join the Soviet Union was Bulgaria. There was talk of Bulgaria become a Soviet Republic, but it did not come to fruition. I'm not sure why.

Also, the Warsaw Pact nations were not "satellites." I understand that most on this list hate the Soviet Union and comrade Stalin. However, do you have to use U.S. bourgeois terminology?

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[communard resolution]

Hi Edric O


During the 1970s, Ceausescu's government took massive loans from the IMF and other capitalist financial institutions, which he used to finance a period of prosperity (the 1970s are also remembered in Romania as a "golden age"). However, things started going downhill as soon as it became necessary to pay off the loans. Throughout the 1980s, an increasingly larger share of Romania's industrial and agricultural production was being diverted to pay off the external debt. This resulted in extreme hardship, poverty and deprivation - after 1984, basic food became hard to find, although there was no real decline in the production of food. It was just that so much of it was being exported.

I've heard that other Warsaw Pact countries also took similar loans and had to repay them. Perhaps that might be part of the reason for the economic hardship in these countries?
Wikipedia says this about Poland:

"Fueled by large infusions of Western credit, Poland's economic growth rate was one of the world's highest during the first half of the 1970s. But much of the borrowed capital was misspent, and the centrally planned economy was unable to use the new resources effectively. The growing debt burden became insupportable in the late 1970s, and economic growth had become negative by 1979."

'Economic growth had become negative' seems like somewhat of an understatement when I think back of everyday reality in PRL, but ok, you can't expect them to post people's personal experiences on Wiki.

If this very brief information is accurate, then you may indeed be right about loans having been part of the reason for our economic hardship. I can however assure you that the ruling caste of parasites and policemen lived a life of luxury buying all sorts of Western goods in exclusive stores.

[Random Precision]

Sorry to veer off-topic again, but I feel like I need to respond to this:


On an off-topic note in regards to Stalin: I'm not one to religiously defend Stalin and everything he has ever done, but one thing strikes me as odd: when the focus is on Stalin's doctrine of 'socialism in one country' - which I understand was a concession to the Soviet people's being exhausted from war - people will call him a traitor to the idea of International Communism.

The Stalinists in the USSR (as well as the Bukharinists up to a certain point) turned the necessity of the USSR striking out on its own temporarily to a virtue. Was the revolution delayed in the countries of Europe after 1918 or so? Yes, indeed it was. But by adopting "socialism in one country" as the party's theoretical line, its proponents came to ignore the revolutionary opportunities that emerged in other countries- and what's worse, to damage or even sabotage them. For example, during the 1927 Chinese Revolution, Stalin and Bukharin forced the CCP into a policy of servitude (the Comintern representative in China, Borodin, referred to it as "coolie service") to the Guomindang. After repeated examples of Chiang Kai-shek's betrayal of the CCP and workers movements, the Chinese Communists were then ordered into futile uprisings in which most of the best cadres were killed. There's also, of course, 1933 in Germany, the details of which I don't feel a need to discuss. The Russian CP identifying itself with this reactionary "theory" led to its adoption by the Cominern as well, which came to adopt policies for the sake of Russia's national interest rather than world revolution.


But whenever he did try to spread socialism to other countries, the same people call him a Soviet Imperialist. How does that work? It strikes me as doublethink, and I would be curious to hear what exactly he was supposed to do in your opinion.

It's not really an issue of him "spreading socialism". If we accept socialism as the liberation of the working class which "must come from the working class itself" (Marx and Engels), then it follows that socialism can't be spread by an invading army, as Stalin was trying to do. All the leading Bolsheviks, including and foremost Lenin, realized this, and were given a nasty reminder of it during the Polish campaign in the Civil War (which isn't to say that that campaign wasn't justified, as Poland had invaded Russia.)

So, to answer your question, I would say that Stalin was in a unique position as the leader of a bureaucracy which claimed to be the center of world socialism, and as he was that leader it was obvious that he would try to export revolution by Russian bayonets. But what he exported was not socialism, it was rather a duplication of the same state-capitalism he presided over in the USSR. I would say that in the same position, a leader of a healthy workers state, if forced to pursue the invasion of the "buffer" nations like Stalin was, after the enemy was defeated would withdraw his armies from those countries in the interest of their own self-determination, while pursuing a consistently internationalist policy and encouraging the workers and their organizations in those countries to rise in revolution as opportunities appeared to do so.

[communard resolution]

I conclude:

There are some hints that the loans Poland took from other countries may have been one of the main reasons for the atrocious standard of living.

Where Wikipedia states that "much of the borrowed capital was misspent, and the centrally planned economy was unable to use the new resources effectively", I personally would argue that "much of the borrowed capital went straight into the ruling caste's pockets, and the centrally planned economy ensured that the new resources were used to feed the parasitic Polish 'communist' regime's greed."

We've also received some hints that the economies of the individual Warsaw Pact states may have been more independent of the USSR than is commonly assumed. Other forum members, however, argue that the Warsaw Pact countries were merely USSR satellites. I suppose the jury is still out on this one for sheer lack of evidence.

This is an important issue to me, and I would like to thank everybody for participating and contributing to this thread.

[Hyacinth]

You know, if these loans that the Eastern Bloc borrowed came from the IMF (why did they do that in the first place?) why didn’t they just tell the IMF to fuck off when it came time to repay the loans?

[communard resolution]

why didn’t they just tell the IMF to fuck off when it came time to repay the loans?

Risk of war, I suppose?