Does postmodern mean capitalist? This article attempts to answer this question by comparing postmodern neo-historicism in two late socialist contexts: the People's Republic of Poland, where in the 1980s the planned economy was progressively eroding and postmodern architecture mostly sponsored by non-state clients (private individuals, small housing cooperatives and the Catholic Church), and the German Democratic Republic (GDR), where in the 1980s the institutions of the state-planned economy remained in power and commissioned prominent postmodern projects.

The inception of postmodernism in the early 1980s is commonly linked to the rise of neoliberalism in Western countries, characterized by figures like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Many iconic postmodern buildings celebrated “capitalist values” such as private capital, entrepreneurialism, and consumerism. Theorists of the time identified postmodernism with the “neoliberal turn” in Western Europe and North America, marked by the decline of the welfare state, the privatization of housing and public assets, and increasing wealth disparity.

However, the article explores the notion that postmodern architecture in Eastern bloc countries, including Poland and the GDR, had different motivations and values than its Western counterpart. Despite operating within planned economies, postmodernism was influential in these countries.

In both Poland and East Germany postmodern architecture shared certain characteristics: a critique of modernism, the use of historical references and quotations, and the incorporation of vernacular models. In both countries the overall output of construction was comparatively small due to an ailing economy, which was nonetheless still stronger in East Germany than in Poland.

There were nonetheless important distinctions between postmodernism in East Germany and Poland. In East Germany, the institutions of the planned economy remained intact due to comparative political stability. State control over construction was inflexible.Poland, in contrast, implemented quasi-capitalist structures earlier and more gradually. Non-state entities, such as cooperatives and the Catholic Church, gradually gained approval for construction projects. Within the limitations of the slumping economy this allowed young architects to experiment with postmodern ideas beyond ideological constraints. These initiatives eventually led to a diverse architectural environment that continued even after the socialist regime ended.

The article highlights the role of the Catholic Church in Poland, with numerous postmodern churches built during the 1980s. These buildings often had strong connections to the longstanding discourse on the Polish nation, which under socialism continued to hold positive connotations among both socialist officials and members of the opposition. They also reflected a desire for spiritual truth, providing an alternative to the perceived superficiality of socialist ideology. At the same time there were next to no postmodern projects financed by state institutions under the control of the ruling socialist party, the Polish Unified Workers’ Party.

In this context, the article mentions churches such as Ascension Church in Warsaw-Ursynów (1980-85, Marek Budzyński, Zbigniew Badowski, Piotr Wicha), St Jadwiga in Kraków (1983-89, Romuald Loegler, Jacek Czekaj), or Our Lady Queen of Poland in Głogów (1985-89, Marian Fikus, Jerzy Gurawski). The article also discusses cooperative multi-family houses such as the infills on Legionów Józefa Piłsudskiego 2 in Kraków (1985-89, Wojciech Obtułowicz, Danuta Oledzka-Baran) or Przestrzenna 19-19A in Wrocław (1986, Anna Bożek-Nowicka), and the rebuilt old town of Elbląg (1979 master plan by Wiesław Anders, Szczepan Baum and Ryszard Semka, from 1983 revised and implemented under the influence of conservationist Maria Lubocka-Hoffmann, building design by various architects).

In East Germany, postmodern projects were primarily initiated and financed by state institutions, aligning with the goals of the ruling Socialist Unity Party. The Nikolaiviertel project in East Berlin (1979-87, Günter Stahn and others) for example, recreated an old town using prefabricated concrete slabs, aiming to improve the state's image. However, such projects were less innovative and more utilitarian. Next to the Nikolaiviertel the article discusses projects such as the Friedrichstadt Palace (1983 Manfred Prasser and others) and the Zentrum Marzahn (1978, Wolf Eisentraut, Dietmar Bankert and others) in East Berlin, the Marktplatz area in Halle (1984-1989, Oswald Arlt and others) and the Five Gable House (1984-1986, Peter Baumbach and Erich Kaufmann) and surrounding buildings in Rostock.

The economic underpinnings of postmodernism differed significantly in both countries. Poland's postmodern architecture largely emerged from private clients and non-state entities, reflecting the influence of capitalist pluralism. In East Germany, postmodern projects were predominantly top-down initiatives aimed at projecting an image of plurality, but firmly rooted in the institutions of the planned economy.

The article argues that while the different economic regimes in Poland and the GDR did not lead to prominent stylistic discrepancies, they strongly influenced significance and perception of these projects in their particular national contexts. Challenging the notion that postmodernism is solely a product of advanced capitalism, the article argues that postmodern architecture in Poland and East Germany was shaped by capitalist ideas and values absorbed by non-capitalist regimes. Furthermore, it highlights the role of postmodernism in these countries as a reflection of their unique historical, political, and cultural contexts, distinct from the Western narrative.

• Publisher