Perhaps my choice of thumbnails was a little unfair. Eastern Europe trailed the west before the Bolsheviks ever came to power. And in doing research for my Soviet Union quiz, I learned that the USSR actually had the world's 25th best HDI in 1990.
Of course the communists were terrible for all sorts of other reasons, but in the second half of the 20th century, they were actually able to raise the standard of living by a fair amount in the Soviet Union.
Eastern Europe trailed the West not because of communism or any other political ideology but because of its geography of being more isolated and not having access to the sea.
Even so, you should consider the following. The countries that immediately rejected socialism and embraced liberal democracy and European integration upon independence (Baltic states and Central Europe) have seen their standard of living soar since the 1990s.
@Sulps: Most of the countries on the list immediately rejected socialism after the collapse of the USSR. Even countries where popular support for communism continued, such as Russia, saw mass privatizations and other liberal economic measures in such a rapid and disorganized manner that these probably contributed to the equally rapid deterioration of their living standard. Such mismanagement, along with armed conflicts in some countries and, of course, limited western investment are probably the main contributors to the difference in HDI.
It depends on terminology. In post-communist countries socialism is used quite interchangeably with communism in general discussion, especially in former SFRY.
Most eastern European countries were extremely underdeveloped/rural before communism. Communism brought about great industrialization and urbanization. Heck, the town I'm writing this from (Rijeka, Croatia) had all sorts of impressive. quality infrastructure (residential 15+story buildings, for example) built between 1960 and 1980, the kind that rarely gets built in capitalism any more because domestic private entrepreneurs with enough money or economic incentive to build such infrastructure simply don't exist and foreign companies usually invest in countries with cheaper labor.
@Djilas That's because most people (not only in ex-communist countries) are ignorant of the meaning of those words. The fact that it's common doesn't mean it's correct.
I've never been to Eastern Europe, so I could be wrong, but from what I can tell the quality of life there really isn't that bad. Sure, it lags behind Western Europe, but these numbers are way better than the numbers of most of Asia and Latin America and probably all of Africa.
The Russian Empire was very rural and unindustrialized. I don't know how much credit the government of the USSR specifically deserves for development, but there's no doubt Eastern Europe developed a lot during this period.
The fact that Communists introduced general education to and industrialized a country of illiterate peasants and elevated women's role in society would be even more impressive if it weren't for the gulags, purges, repression, terror, and ethnic cleansing.
I mean, I don't think that necessarily makes advancement less "impressive" per se, it just reminds us to be careful about how we judge things.
China is kinda a modern day example of what you just described. Do I think find it "impressive" that in the past 40 years China has gone from having a lower GDP per capita than most of Africa to being the world's largest exporter and lifting almost a billion people out of extreme poverty? Absolutely! But none of that makes extreme censorship, crackdowns in Hong Kong, and Uighur concentration camps acceptable. There are many factors that led to China's success, and I'll give their government credit where it's due, but that doesn't mean I, or anyone, should approve of the government and its actions, nor do I think that it's the best model for development.
I think it was especially true for the poorer territories of the USSR. This could be seen a lot with the Central Asian -stans. The central government would invest in infrastructure that now isn't being built or maintained. Plus, the more liberal ideas toward gender allowed women in these largely patriarchal societies to work in professional careers and enjoy a level of independence not seen even today in some countries. For example, Kyrgyzstan still has an epidemic of bride kidnapping, where a man abducts a woman and forces her into marriage, that is largely unimpeded by the government. At the same time, we have to remember another data point about Central Asia in the USSR. It was a graveyard of minority ethnicities deemed problematic by the government. Koreans from the Russian far east, Germans from the present Kaliningrad Oblast and the Danube and Volga, and Tatars all ended up being forcibly relocated there.
I find it interesting how these countries are almost all the European countries that are not in the EU or have some kind of close tie to it (Switzerland, Norway, Monaco, etc). Just shows what a great idea the EU is. Take in poor countries and make them wealthier. :-)
Arguably the EU is more like a country than not at this point, and from that perspective it's almost like a very early U.S., back when the States weren't really United aside from against Britannia. In which case an EU that properly united and called itself one country might not be too very far away if everything goes as intended. And the EU's trade, both internally and externally, is among the best in the world from that viewpoint.
To be part of the UE you need to have a good HDI, and when you are in the UE you can trade better...
It is not because they are not part of the UE that they are "poor", it is because they are poor that they are not members of the UE... then they have more difficulties to get richer...
Land can belong to many people. A "homeland" is not some kind of everlasting imperative, but a very concrete of people living there - and how they are treated.
The former Yugoslavia was more developed and had a higher standard of living than most of Eastern Europe. War rather than communist inheritance led to HDI decline or stagnation. Portgual was lower than Serbia until the late 1980s. If you combine Slovenia and Croatia (the richer parts of Yugoslavia) to the rest of the FYR, HDI was comparable to southern Europe. Post WWII Yugoslavian communism did better than the fascist dictators of Portugal and Spain and the military generals of Greece.
Your thumbnail is unfair! Lenin lifted millions out of poverty after the revolution became successful and inspired other millions of people to follow his example. Just... shame on you. The communist ideas are great, glory to socialism.
It depends on terminology. In post-communist countries socialism is used quite interchangeably with communism in general discussion, especially in former SFRY.
The Russian Empire was very rural and unindustrialized. I don't know how much credit the government of the USSR specifically deserves for development, but there's no doubt Eastern Europe developed a lot during this period.
China is kinda a modern day example of what you just described. Do I think find it "impressive" that in the past 40 years China has gone from having a lower GDP per capita than most of Africa to being the world's largest exporter and lifting almost a billion people out of extreme poverty? Absolutely! But none of that makes extreme censorship, crackdowns in Hong Kong, and Uighur concentration camps acceptable. There are many factors that led to China's success, and I'll give their government credit where it's due, but that doesn't mean I, or anyone, should approve of the government and its actions, nor do I think that it's the best model for development.
To be part of the UE you need to have a good HDI, and when you are in the UE you can trade better...
It is not because they are not part of the UE that they are "poor", it is because they are poor that they are not members of the UE... then they have more difficulties to get richer...