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.