Why is eastern europe so poor?

I always ponder why eastern europe is so poor, i mean, historicallyy it has been an underdeveloped region but spain and portugal were as poor as them but now Spain and Portugal are considered First World meanwhile in eastern countries the poverty is rampant.
Why?

Communism dude. I'm a socialist but I'm not a radical and neither is most of leftypol. We recognize the need for a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

it's true

was this ironic

1.) Lack of capital investments to the region
2.) lower amounts of working age people due to decline in birthrates
3.) bad privatization in aftermath of soviet collapse(nepotism and corruption in the orgains of communist parties leading these "reforms")
4.) lack of well educated workforce
5.) closed markets in most places(specially the Russia and Belrussia)

One of the reasons is probably the Marshall plan. The western-european countries had their economies subsidised by the US, allowing them to recover more quickly, while the eastern countries were all ravaged by the war.

None of those countries had enough capital to spread equally among the people. Capitalism is needed as a step before Communism, that's what Lenin did in Russia. Saying it is Communism's fault is not incorrect, but it also indicates that there is something inherently wrong in a Socialist Economy. It's not that fucking black and white.

No? There's a reason Northern Europe is so much better than Eastern Europe.

Lenin was alright, apparently he didn't support the USSR and was waiting on a democratic socialist revolution in Germany (See-Rosa Luxemburg).

Comrad, we are not supposed to talk about Rosa for reasons.

I agree, capitalism is need we just aren't ready for communism yet maybe after we get transhuman tech?

...

Yeah? This is the reason we need a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

???

Most western countries of today have more than enough capital to spread equally so everyone lives an average middle-class life. The problem is the general public in 1st world countries will never go against what they think is their own interests and destroy capitalism.

I think if you would spread the wealth in america equally, everyone would have an income of around 41 000$ each month.

No, that is the reason why Capitalism is a must to reach Communism. Once the capital is high enough private ownership is unnecessary

To clarify, private ownership over the means of production.

I think I did the calculation a few months ago and got a yearly income for everyone over 16 of about 49500 and savings for just everyone including kids of about 25000 or 315000 without kids

Oh and that was just individuals and non-profits income spread out that didn't even include corporate income and profit into it

Oops, added 1 too many 0s there. 4100$ each month is correct from what I read.

You are aware that Spain's and Portugal's economies turned to mud, right?

The Mongols buttfucked east Europe. Not being part of an ancient empire didn't help either (yeah yeah muh Dinaro-Ilyrija and sheeeeet but still)

Conservative feudal empires resisted capitalism and were destroyed by bourgeois-capitalist empires in the west, aka WW1. Then there was a massive global economic depression followed almost immediately by another WW, this time between liberal-capitalist Western empires and reactionary Central European-would-be empires against the backdrop of radical worker actions and socialist activity that had been simmering for decades. After WW2 the USSR/Comintern/Whatever were locked out of the resources available to global capital and so had to develop without the financial or material assistance available to Western Europe such as the Marshall Plan (aka "An Act to promote world peace and the general welfare, national interest, and foreign policy of the United States through economic, financial, and other measures necessary to the maintenance of conditions abroad in which free institutions may survive and consistent with the maintenance of the strength and stability of the United States.").

Fast forward through about 75 years of economic development and the disassembly of the USSR and you have a region with none of the resources or legal defenses against the predations of capitalism. Without the iron curtain to hold it back any longer, international capital swoops in and strips anything of value from the Eastern Bloc and the rest is ruled by national bourgeoisie at the behest of global bourgeoisie. Because of how capitalism inherently works, money flows out of these new assimilated regions via the same kinds of mechanisms that lead to Wal-Mart destroying the economies of small towns. Bleeding capital in this way prevents the capital accumulation necessary to facilitate a large-scale consumer-based economy necessary to sustain Western standards of material luxury.

Meanwhile, those that benefited from the capital accumulation produced by the vast, quasi-feudal empires of the preceding centuries or those at least willing to do their bidding now benefit from the elaborate dog and pony show that is the global economic financial system that evolved out of the capitalist disasters of the early 20th century.

for future use

That map makes absolutely no sense, half of the countries on the early maps didn't exist at that time, or didn't have borders anything like their modern day counterpart. How the fuck could they have gotten numbers that make any fucking sense with their - in historical eyes - nonsensical modern borders?
For christ sake the Ottoman fucking empire still existed in 1890.
Also to respond to your question in a simple and dismissive manner because I'm not actually interested in discussing this: Google, 'the marshall plan'. The US infused western Europe with a fuckton of resources and made them geopolitically dependent on them, which most of western Europe still is to this day.
Not only did the USSR not have these resources, the country was only barely industrialized at the end of WW2, but the USSR fucking dissolved thirty years ago, meaning that the east-bloc's primary economic partner was thrust into major disarray and a chain of civil wars disrupted economic stability in the region.
Even if Russia was a liberal democracy, the choice was still between economic submission or escalation of conflict. For a major "ideological" conflict, there sure was a lot of simple geopolitics.

Last of all, you can't just pick some random statistic or number like the GDP and assume that it's useful or helpful in judging life quality, especially in countries where these things don't lend to measuring in a nice and easy manner. One might instead look at quality of life measures, instead of economic output.


???????????????
Is this your first day here?
Do you know what projecting is?
Do you know what any of those words mean?
I think if one believes in the continuation of the capitalist mode of production one is in the far far minority here.