Life in the DDR (East Germany)?

[sovietpower01]

Hey comrades! How was life in the DDR like?

[NiK]

DDR got the best goods in the Soviet Bloc, so it was pretty good considering quality of goods and all that. It was the that border country which was dressed to impress the West.

[Luís Henrique]

Hey comrades! How was life in the DDR like?

I suggest you this book:

Robert Kurz, Der Kollaps der Modernisierung

Luís Henrique

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It was shit.

[Holden Caulfield]

It was shit.

Verbal Warning Joseph.
Just don't.

[rosa_rot]

I'm born in the west of Germany, two years after the Sovjet union collapsed. So I'm not able to tell first-hand experiences. But I read a lot...so I'll try.
Most of all it was normal European life. There wasn't really poverty, but no prosperity either. People raised their children, did their jobs, went to see movies and tried to go through life without complications. So far so good...

But the differences make it most interesting:
First of all: It WAS a dictatoric, not a democratic state. There WERE many people who suffered and were treated injust because of their opinion, and it was not a just state.
It even wasn't a real socialistic society (it might have been in the beginning, but the Wall was the end of it). It was somewhat in between...typically german: burocratic, bourgeouis and somewhat boring (at least as I see it...if here is someone who's seen it with their own eyes, please correct me!!!).

BUT: it was NOT like the western capitalists present(ed) it to the population, it had very very good aspects.
For example the emancipation of women, including free kindergarden places (which has topical importance in this world), the society that showed tendencies to a classless one, the internationalistic aspect of the foreign policy, the VEBs.

The things that ruined this state at last were: the rich West Germany next door (people always think neighbor's apples are better), the restrictive system, and the bad planning of the economy (I personally agree with planned economy, but it was executed badly and didn't fulfill the need of the people).

Okay...enough blabla. Read it yourself (attention, many books are not neutral, they are full of western ideology, but this book by Robert Kurz is told to be very good...haven't read it myself, but other books by him, and he is absolutely recomandable).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I heard something about a wall, that's all I know though.

[Radical]

The greatest achivement of every workers state in history is that they ended the exploitation of the oppressed people. The filthy oppressive acts of the ruling classes were stopped and wealth was redistributed equally.

We must not forget that our Dear Leninist Leader Stalin paved the way for Socialism. Only for it to be betrayed by the wicked deeds of Revisionists and Trotskyites.

[Holden Caulfield]

I heard something about a wall, that's all I know though.

Another pointless thread, this is learning ffs if you have nothing of value to add keep your proverbial mouth closed. please.


The greatest achivement of every workers state in history is that they ended the exploitation of the oppressed people. The filthy oppressive acts of the ruling classes were stopped and wealth was redistributed equally.

We must not forget that our Dear Leninist Leader Stalin paved the way for Socialism. Only for it to be betrayed by the wicked deeds of Revisionists and Trotskyites.

Sarcasm, lulz, i get it.
Again this is learning so if you can't help somebody learn keep quiet.

I am a Trotskyist, but I wonder if half of the people who attack Stalinism, the Eastern Bloc, the USSR etc and even things like Juche even understand what they are criticising.

People shouldn't just give arguments like: Stalinism = bad. If that is your argument then make it properly

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Another pointless thread, this is learning ffs if you have nothing of value to add keep your proverbial mouth closed. please.

Sorry Holden, I will elaborate. The DDR has no relation to workers freedom as it was a state of repression, power was not in the hands of the proletariat but in the hands of the party. For these reasons wealth cannot have been distributed equally as the model of the DDR essentially maintained a bourgeois ideology much like the previous government.

[Radical]

Another pointless thread, this is learning ffs if you have nothing of value to add keep your proverbial mouth closed. please.



Sarcasm, lulz, i get it.
Again this is learning so if you can't help somebody learn keep quiet.

I am a Trotskyist, but I wonder if half of the people who attack Stalinism, the Eastern Bloc, the USSR etc and even things like Juche even understand what they are criticising.

People shouldn't just give arguments like: Stalinism = bad. If that is your argument then make it properly

I dont quite understand what your trying to say? I'm not a Trotskyist and I wasent being sarcastic.

[Mindtoaster]

I'd recommend watching "Goodbye Lenin"

The first half-hour or so of the movie give a pretty fair, pretty interesting insight into life on that side of the wall

There was a lot of political suppression, but there was also a bit of political activism. It was basically activists who would push to get, say, new clothing styles manufactured and the government would often listen. Also, in the movie it seemed they met material needs pretty well

=THIS IS COMING FROM A MOVIE, not any objective historical research on my part=

[Holden Caulfield]

I dont quite understand what your trying to say? I'm not a Trotskyist and I wasent being sarcastic.

oh well then in that case...

how can exploitation not exist when the workers do not have democratic control of the means of production, or the apparatus of the state? when wage slavery still exists, when movement is restricted, when competition and imperialism still exist?

[Mindtoaster]

Here is Goodbye Lenin, if anyone is interested

Really good movie all in all

Sorry comrade, no links to illegal downloads - best to contact individual users by PM or email if you want to exchange links. Bobkkkindle$.

[RotStern]

Life in the DDR was not the best.
But the supposed 'poverty' is exagerated.
There was a damn restrictive system put in place that would evaluate you if you were or were not state conform.
I have not read much about it but this is what I have been told.
It is true though they were lucky and got the best clothes and stuff to impress the West.

[punisa]

Very interesting topic (except some of the useless comments).
If I may expand it with a sub-question:
Why was the wall necessary ? And how can we justify it as socialists? Especially when somebody brings it up in a conversation against us?

[cb9's_unity]

Very interesting topic (except some of the useless comments).
If I may expand it with a sub-question:
Why was the wall necessary ? And how can we justify it as socialists? Especially when somebody brings it up in a conversation against us?

The question should never be "how can we justify it as socialists?". Instead step back and ask "is it justifiable at all?". It seems you want to analyze the situation with many of your conclusions already drawn.

[KurtFF8]

I'd recommend watching "Goodbye Lenin"

The first half-hour or so of the movie give a pretty fair, pretty interesting insight into life on that side of the wall

There was a lot of political suppression, but there was also a bit of political activism. It was basically activists who would push to get, say, new clothing styles manufactured and the government would often listen. Also, in the movie it seemed they met material needs pretty well

=THIS IS COMING FROM A MOVIE, not any objective historical research on my part=

Also "The Legend of Rita" is a good film that deals with the same thing, only not necessarily as "pro-DDR"

[Demogorgon]

The best known thing about it is of course the extensive surveillance of the population. No other country had such a comprehensive system. The Stasi were not as brutal as some other Secret Police forces around the world, but they were certainly the most intrusive. That of course created an atmosphere of suspicion as to who might be an informer and so on, not to mention a fear of speaking too freely. The consequences for getting caught weren't as bad as they were elsewhere, but the flipside was there was a greater likelihood of that happening.

Apart from that, it was fairly unremarkable. The goods produced in the GDR were the very epitome of utilitarian. As was the architecture. Generally speaking versions most goods that could be acquired in the West could also be gotten in the East, but they would usually be more expensive and have poorer designs. You have to laugh at the fact though, that the one thing that was consistently produced to high standards was beer, I guess that's Germany for you.

[Искра]

DDR was just another state capitalist system, which was ruled by class of bureaucrats, who eliminated all their opponents and terrorised working class whit their repressive organs (like Stasi - secret service). Class of bureaucrats exploited working class and kept them in obedience with massive system of indoctrination. Yet, that wasn't enough so they had to build up the Wall, so that people don't run away.

How was life there? It depended. If you were part of working class you stand in bread line, and if you were part of ruling class you lived like bourgeoisie which were supposed to be eliminated.

[Holden Caulfield]

Please make sensible posts.

This is a learning thread, if you wanna make even more and more sarcastic comments make them in chit chat.

[punisa]

The question should never be "how can we justify it as socialists?". Instead step back and ask "is it justifiable at all?". It seems you want to analyze the situation with many of your conclusions already drawn.

You misinterpreted what I was saying. I said "how can we justify it as socialists?" in terms when a non-socialists brings it up in a conversation or a debate.
In the eyes of the general public we - the "socialists" inherit all the history that ever related to socialism. And thus should be able to defend it or dismiss it.
Same as if someone asks you "how do you justify the gulags?"

I don't analyze, nor conclude anything - if I was I'd say "the wall was awesome" or "the wall sucked". It is you who analyzes my simple question.
So you "take a step" back as there is no need to guide me on ways I should construct my question in order to suit you.

[#FF0000]

I know a few minor details. Every home had heating, as far as I know. People would turn it on, but it would make the home way too hot. So they'd open a window, and keep the heater on.

Free heating. Neat.

I also think I remember Ismail or someone telling me about how they had an "Institute for Marxist-Leninist studies", which people could pretty much ask for a Marxist work and they'd get the book delivered to them. In fact I have all three volumes of Das Kapital right out of the DDR.

EDIT: Everything I've heard from reliable sources pretty much says the same thing. "It wasn't so bad".

[cb9's_unity]

You misinterpreted what I was saying. I said "how can we justify it as socialists?" in terms when a non-socialists brings it up in a conversation or a debate.
In the eyes of the general public we - the "socialists" inherit all the history that ever related to socialism. And thus should be able to defend it or dismiss it.
Same as if someone asks you "how do you justify the gulags?"

You seem to be framing this as a socialist vs. non-socialist issue when in reality there is no unified socialist position on the DDR or the wall. Some socialists (mainly "Marxist-Leninists") mainly support East Germany while nearly all other types of socialists offer no justification for any of the actions of East Germany in the same way we offer no justification for capitalist actions.

Also explain how I (someone who's not a Leninist, Marxist-Leninist or Anti-Revisionist and thus offers nearly no support for the DDR) somehow "inherits" the history of the DDR. When someone brings up East Germany I have to defend myself in the same way I defend myself when someone criticizes some Social Democratic party that likes to call itself socialist. I completely divorce myself from both the DDR and Social Democrats as I see neither of them truly socialist. I don't see how I inherit the history of any group I don't support and don't take influence from.


I don't analyze, nor conclude anything - if I was I'd say "the wall was awesome" or "the wall sucked". It is you who analyzes my simple question.
So you "take a step" back as there is no need to guide me on ways I should construct my question in order to suit you.You obviously want to analyze the situation in some way, if you didn't then you wouldn't have asked the question. I believed your question was making certain assumptions that made it difficult or impossible to actually answer.

[Psy]

Apart from that, it was fairly unremarkable. The goods produced in the GDR were the very epitome of utilitarian. As was the architecture. Generally speaking versions most goods that could be acquired in the West could also be gotten in the East, but they would usually be more expensive and have poorer designs. You have to laugh at the fact though, that the one thing that was consistently produced to high standards was beer, I guess that's Germany for you.
Actually build qualiy was only inferior to the higher build quality in the capitalist countries during the long boom, as capitalists around the world started to combat the crisis of over production in the 1970's by decreasing build quality starting from the late 70's there was less and less of a difference in a build quality till now where many GDR goods are still functional while their newer post GDR goods have failed, for example military surplus UAZ-469 (basically a jeep) built in the late 1980's are still in service as fleet vechicles for rural workmen in Eastern Europe are far more reliable (when properly maintained) then most modern offroad vehicle manufactured today, some US troops even use captured UAZ-469 in Iraq that don't have Humvees. I doubt the current average built quality of capitalists would have impressed the Eastern Europeans back then much.

And when it came to industrial good like train engines (even during the long boom) eastern Europe ruled, there are still VL-80 electric train engines built in the 1960's are still in service with just modernization (making them worthy of having the name Vladimir Lenin-80).

[narcomprom]

Very interesting topic (except some of the useless comments).
If I may expand it with a sub-question:
Why was the wall necessary ? And how can we justify it as socialists? Especially when somebody brings it up in a conversation against us?
The wall has gotten incredibly bad public (think kennedy, think pink floyd) so defending it, along with the other aspects of real existing socialism, you'll be playing advocatus diaboli. The consensus of all major Socialist parties is that the GDR, as well as the other Soviet-type states, weren't really socialist.
On the one hand you have western euromarxists reading Lukacs, Habermas, Luxemburg, Korsch etc. radically opposed to RES, while on the other you have the eastern comrades reading Sakharov, Bahro, Kolakowski and Havemann - leftist dissidents criticising how the real existing socialisms didn't work as they were supposed to on paper. As is the case with most other post-communist socialist parties, in Germany they are headed by a former leftwing GDR dissident - the lawyer Gregor Gysi. There is hardly anyone left on the Socialist left (pardon the pun) who would defend the wall today.

Arguments for the iron curtain exist, but keep in mind that they are anachronistic.

- it was created to stop educated labour from leaving to the West.
- in Germany the problem was especially precarious. You would get a place to live and all kinds of benefits in the first years to settle down in FRG;
=> without the wall GDR would suffer severe brain drain.
- The US of America have a wall with the US of Mexico, but Cuban wetbacks are allowed to settle.
=> current weak economies don't need an iron curtain because that's provided by the stronger ones.

Per human rights charta citizens must be able to leave their country. How did the GDR handle that? GDR allowed everyone to leave as long as they repaid the services provided by the republic, id est education. Either you could be paid for by a westerner and you could leave once you retired. Legal immigrants did get the same benefits as the illegals when moving to the west. The West didn't want to soak up the retirees.

[Philosophical Materialist]

The GDR (DDR) was a flawed implementation of state socialism but it did have many achievements that should not be ignored.

Women enjoyed an economic, legal and working equality that rarely existed anywhere in the world. Free comprehensive childcare (essential for women to work full-time); positive discrimination in industry, sciences and the professions for women (to eliminate male-dominated professions); and cultural celebrations of female socialist equality were very common in the GDR. By 1989, over half of GDR town Mayors were female.

Higher education placements were deliberately put aside for working class kids. All education was comprehensive and free.

Subsidised food, housing and holidays for the working class.

Although imperfectly realised and hampered by surveillance and bureaucracy, there was a political system that did answer to queries and concerns from the wider population. However the material conditions must be noted, and the fact that the West constantly worked to undermine and overthrow socialism in the GDR.

Comparing socialist East Germany and capitalist East Germany is also essential to understanding the benefits of this implementation of state socialism:

* The annexing of the GDR to capitalist FRG saw structural unemployment being introduced to the former-GDR
* Capitalism enforced the disadvantages faced by women in the West to be imported into East Germany leading to the end of free childcare, the ending of positive female placements in training/industry, and the cultural-misogynist attitudes prevalent in Western advertising
* The working class suffered a large fall in living standards due to the end of subsidised food and rents. Structural unemployment disproportionately affected the working class, especially working class women
* Working class students wishing to go into Higher Education faced greater competition from bourgeois students with money and connections that can be utilised under capitalism.

A lot of people who lived in the GDR would wish to return to those days, and with good reason.

There is a great deal to be critiqued about the GDR but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The world is a sadder place without the GDR.

[Aeval]

Women enjoyed an economic, legal and working equality that rarely existed anywhere in the world. Free comprehensive childcare (essential for women to work full-time); positive discrimination in industry, sciences and the professions for women (to eliminate male-dominated professions); and cultural celebrations of female socialist equality were very common in the GDR. By 1989, over half of GDR town Mayors were female.

This isn't entirely accurate; certainly women got childcare and many more women entered in to male-dominated professions than probably do in Germany today, but for example there was little serious re-evaluation of men's role in the family, women were still mostly expected to do 'women's work' in the house, the were just expected to clean/cook/fix things/look after the kids AND go out and work. Also, although on a local level they were relatively active in government, this was not so on a national level:


Women comprise 45 per cent of the Party's membership, and one-third of all women belong to the "Democratic Women's League of Germany" (the DFD is one of the East German so-called mass organizations). Yet leading political positions are still given preferably to men: of the 2 3 members and candidates in the Politburo, there is only one woman, a candidate member, i.e., a member without voting rights. There is no woman in the Central Committee Secretariat, and only one woman -- Margot Honecker, the wife of First Secretary Erich Honecker -- holds a ministerial position.


Higher education placements were deliberately put aside for working class kids. All education was comprehensive and free.

Though there weren't many places and you would only get in if you had been a good little Pioniere and, if you were male, had completed military service, and even then it would be withheld from people if someone related to them had done something the government did not like.

Noone I know who grew up in the DDR wants to see it back, in particular not the restrictions and the surveillance, but they do regret that it got absorbed into the BRD. It's cause horrendous problems (Rostock '92 anyone?) and the new German State is based on an idea of race; that is, people who have been separated for decades, some of whom never having known the country being together, who had grown up in entirely different systems and had less in common than most neighbouring countries where some how meant to be together because of some quality of 'Germanness' that they all apparently shared. Many hoped that kicking out the then government would result in a new DDR, one without the Stasi and with 'true' socialism or communism, but I've never met anyone who wants to DDR as it was back. If you want to find out about life in the DDR in a more fun way I'd suggest going to the DDR Museum in Berlin, it's pretty accurate in terms of portraying most aspects of people's day-to-day lives, it just might be a bit of a trek if you live in Canada :(

[communard resolution]

The standard of living was not so bad - as far as I'm aware, there was merely a shortage of certain exotic fruit, but you never had long queues for basic goods like meat or bread as was a common sight in Poland. I understand the Soviet Union pumped a lot of money into the GDR as there was the notion that everybody would always compare it to West Germany - it was the 'show piece' of the Eastern Bloc. Back in Poland, the GDR was known as a wealthier country where people "had it better".

In the social field, the GDR was a nanny state for better and worse: everybody had a job, housing, free healthcare and education, and your life was pretty much predestined, but of course it was also one of the most terrible Big Brother societies the world had ever seen, further cultivating the 'Blockwart' (block leader) mentality that many Germans had acquired during the days of the 3rd Reich, with people being spied on and denouncing each other for little reason in order to please the authorities.

If you were part of any youth subculture whose aesthetics differed to those of the official youth organisation, FDJ, you were likely to be identified as a "fascist" and arrested, beaten and humiliated by the police, who would often proceed to cut your hair off.

When I recently visited Berlin and went to a street market, I was surprised to find a 1970s GDR edition of writings by Erich Muhsam, a famous German anarchist who was politically active from the 1910s until his death in a 1930s Nazi camp and who was one of the founders of the short lived Bavarian Soviet Republic. Although he was initially supportive of Bolshevism (the collection contains an interesting letter to Lenin), he became increasingly critical towards what he perceived as its anti-democratic tendencies later on.

The blurb on the book cover says that Muhsam was "not a great politician" and an "ill-considered rebel and anarchist" rather than a scientific socialist but still acknowledges his contribution to socialism, praises him as a "courageous fighter" and acknowledges that after all, he was "one of us - a comrade". The book contains several of Muhsam's writings that are highly critical of Bolshevism, all of which have been left intact and published uncensored.

So my impression is that censorship in the GDR might not have been quite as severe as is commonly assumed - as long as you argued from a socialist perspective.

[communard resolution]

This isn't entirely accurate; certainly women got childcare and many more women entered in to male-dominated professions than probably do in Germany today, but for example there was little serious re-evaluation of men's role in the family, women were still mostly expected to do 'women's work' in the house, the were just expected to clean/cook/fix things/look after the kids AND go out and work. Also, although on a local level they were relatively active in government, this was not so on a national level:

Yes, and most regular East Germans I have met who were old enough to remember the GDR may have some basic notions of 'social justice', but display extremely conservative social attitudes on the other hand. I think there must be reasons for this.

[Philosophical Materialist]

This isn't entirely accurate; certainly women got childcare and many more women entered in to male-dominated professions than probably do in Germany today, but for example there was little serious re-evaluation of men's role in the family, women were still mostly expected to do 'women's work' in the house, the were just expected to clean/cook/fix things/look after the kids AND go out and work. Also, although on a local level they were relatively active in government, this was not so on a national level.

Your critique of my post is based upon something I didn't say. I said economic, legal and working equality. I agree with you that the domestic division of labour was not tackled sufficiently. I also agree with you about women's participation in higher government, but I never claimed that a developed feminist society existed in the GDR, although it was moving in the right direction.

Well, I do know people who lived in the GDR who want it back (of course ideally without its faults). Now yes, there were many things wrong with it, but they felt it was worth sustaining so that it could have been developed into a far better state formation. The downfall of the GDR was a sad episode in the struggle for socialism.

[Aeval]

True, I realise you weren't saying that, I just wanted to share that actual equality between men and women did not exist, nor was it ever really attempted, even if there were some token gestures. I actually wanted to add on to what you were saying as a lot of people see that the employment rate for women was pretty much the same as for men and then automatically assume that this means it was some feminist utopia - I'm not saying you thought that, but some people on here might not know about the lack of political and social equality hidden behind such facades giving them free childcare. But I realise my post came across as (incorrectly) attacking what you had said, so sorry :)



Well, I do know people who lived in the GDR who want it back (of course ideally without its faults). Now yes, there were many things wrong with it, but they felt it was worth sustaining so that it could have been developed into a far better state formation. The downfall of the GDR was a sad episode in the struggle for socialism.

That's exactly what I mean, people wanted to take the DDR, take the good things, strip away all nonsense, the Wall, the spying etc, let the people actually have a say in things and then improve it further - but there's very few people who actually want the DDR as it was back, except presumably those who profited from it.

[Edelweiss]

The consequences for getting caught weren't as bad as they were elsewhere, but the flipside was there was a greater likelihood of that happening.

well, it was quiet bad actually. Distributing works by a banned (communist!) author or artist like Wolf Biermann easily could get you a couple of years in jail under constant psychological terror/torture. The prices where not low at all for political dissent in the DDR. Granted, that they didn't get straight murdered like under Stalin, but that doesn't make it any better at all. The DDR bureaucracy was in a very cynical way very eager to jail as many political dissidents as possible, not only for the obvious reason to break and silence them, but also just to "sell" them later on to the BRD to get some foreign currency into the almost bankrupt cash desks of the DDR.

[bailey_187]

The standard of living was not so bad - as far as I'm aware, there was merely a shortage of certain exotic fruit,

A comrade I know who used to live in GDR said when he asked people why they had no bananas in GDR he was told "because we have no colonies"

[communard resolution]

Harking back to the socially conservative attitudes I mentioned earlier on, here's an interesting piece on how the East German regime dealt with homosexuality.

http://www.petertatchell.net/history/queer%20comrades.htm (http://www.petertatchell.net/history/queer%20comrades.htm)

It is very much in line with the sentiments of most ex GDR citizens that I've personally encountered. They generally find homosexuality to be tolerable as long as it stays in the closet. Needless to say, they don't wish to impose such restrictions upon expressions of heterosexuality.

[communard resolution]

Regarding the status of women in East Germany pre/post-reunification, here's an additional text:


When the GDR became five new Laender (states) in the FRG, many old East German laws and culture were rejected; and the GDR was expected to conform to West German standards concerning law and culture. Because of political doctrine, approximately 90 percent of women in the GDR were in the labor force. They benefited from such provisions as a comprehensive child care program, abortion rights and extensive job training. Many of these benefits were lost in the reunification process. In contrast, women in the FRG had a much lower labor force participation rate, lacked adequate child care, had extremely limited abortion rights and had much less access to job training than women in the former GDR.

from http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa080601c.htm

[Paul Cockshott]

Very interesting topic (except some of the useless comments).
If I may expand it with a sub-question:
Why was the wall necessary ? And how can we justify it as socialists? Especially when somebody brings it up in a conversation against us?

It arose because of the shortage of skilled labour caused by emigration to the west.
If you divide a country in two and narrow income differentials on one side of the divide, those whose profession would enable them to earn more will migrate to the other side.

One only has to look at the migration of skilled labour from poorer countries to the USA and UK to see this happening today.

[Muzk]

... Gregor Gysi once said:

"Of course there are the ones saying that the DDR was bad...
but there are thousands of other people also."

---
All in all was the DDR... well, crap. Socialism? Yes, to some degree, but don't forget that it was deformed AND degenerated from the very start(right? I'm a new trot =D), a forced socialist state... and then the wall, of course it would ruin every socialists reputation for the future

... Today I bought one of those papers homeless/jobless people sell... It had a story of a person in it who fled to western germany in 1988... 1 year to early. He was of course, "greeted" by the west through free clothes etc.(Manipulation much?), but he couldn't get a job at all.
Why?
1 day after he fled, the stasi had already 'removed' his past. To get a job, a future or take the opportunity of an extra education paid by the state, he needed his old school certificates. When he called the school, they told him that he has never been a student.

It finished with a quote by him: "If I knew that the wall would fall 1 year later - I would have waited."

And, he was still in western Germany when they started closing the borders... But he and his family still went east, home, he asks himself how his life could have went if he stayed in the west.

Lots of text will any of you even read this ?XD

[Aeval]

It had a story of a person in it who fled to western germany in 1991... 1 year to early.

Erm...you know the Wall came down in '89 right?

[manic expression]

I appreciate some of the points and perspectives brought up, but I'd like to add just one thing. A few posters have cited the extent of intolerance of dissent in the DDR as an unquestionable negative, but we must look at this in context. The SEP and all progressive Germans had just seen the most horrific, barbaric, catastrophic and inhuman genocide in the history of the world unfold right before their eyes. They watched as marginal "dissenters" slowly grabbed power and then led Germany and all of humanity into unimaginable terror.

In light of this, can we forgive German socialists for being a bit oversensitive to dissent? Can we understand that the individuals who came to direct the DDR were once intimately threatened and confronted with the realities of the Holocaust and Nazi rule, and thus overreacted when it came to political opponents? Is that such a stretch?

Remember, the idiots in the SPD were the "open-minded" ones when it came to the NSDAP in the 20's and 30's. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Just something to consider.

[Muzk]

Erm...you know the Wall came down in '89 right?

Remembering numbers is a hell of a pain for me :(

[communard resolution]

They watched as marginal "dissenters" slowly grabbed power and then led Germany and all of humanity into unimaginable terror.

In light of this, can we forgive German socialists for being a bit oversensitive to dissent?

No, it is absolutely unforgivable, especially in light of the 3rd Reich experience where dissenters such as the communists themselves were subjected to imprisonment in camps, torture, humiliation, or death. To replicate this type of zero tolerance police state and encourage the 3rd Reich "Blockwart" mentality among the population in the name of socialism is absolutely unacceptable. It is the one thing we shouldn't cut the GDR regime any slack for at all.

[manic expression]

No, it is absolutely unforgivable, especially in light of the 3rd Reich experience where dissenters such as the communists themselves were subjected to imprisonment in camps, torture, humiliation, or death. To replicate this type of zero tolerance police state and encourage the 3rd Reich "Blockwart" mentality among the population in the name of socialism is absolutely unacceptable. It is the one thing we shouldn't cut the GDR regime any slack for at all.

That's an abstract and moralizing argument. Let's look at the issue in detail:

With the creation of the DDR, the tables were turned on the fascists and the far-right and their collaborating lapdogs (who were showered with support in the west, let's not forget). If you look at the situation in the abstract, you just may come to the conclusion that state suppression always equals state suppression, but the real questions involve the who and why. Suppression of political dissent in order to protect revolutionary gains is a foundation of all socialist societies. Add in the desire to do everything possible to ensure that such a nightmare wouldn't happen again and the whole thing is far from unreasonable. The fact that communists and others were tortured, humiliated and murdered is just one more reason why it wasn't so uncalled for.

How was the DDR encouraging a "3rd Reich mentality" when the vast majority of the principles and policies and programs being put forward were the polar opposite of the 3rd Reich? That makes absolutely no sense.

[JimmyJazz]

It is the one thing we shouldn't cut the GDR regime any slack for at all.

The East Germans themselves tried to put Honecker on trial for the deaths of East Germans killed trying to cross the wall. He tried to flee to the Soviet Union but was extradited back to Germany. The only reason he escaped punishment is because it was discovered that he had terminal cancer.

[Dr Mindbender]

wasnt there a poll or something recently that said more than half of East Germans want the DDR back?

[communard resolution]

That's an abstract and moralizing argument. Let's look at the issue in detailTo every arguement, there's moralising at the core. Why do you oppose the exploitation of humans by humans? Because deep down, you simply think it's wrong - an abstract and moralising argument. Why do I oppose the suppression of the working class by a regime, even if that regime claims to represent the working class? Because deep down, I simply think it's wrong. I don't care what that regime professes to be their reasons for ruling over an entire society this way.

If the bourgeoisie were the subject of utmost repression, I would agree with it and wouldn't think of it as wrong in the least. But in the case of the GDR and similar regimes, the working class was the subject of tyranny.


Add in the desire to do everything possible to ensure that such a nightmare wouldn't happen again and the whole thing is far from unreasonable. Do you really believe they wanted to prevent dissenters such as Wolf Biermann from establishing a Fourth Reich? You must be joking.

They established a nightmare, allegedly to prevent another. Except I don't actually think they believed in it themselves.


How was the DDR encouraging a "3rd Reich mentality" when the vast majority of the principles and policies and programs being put forward were the polar opposite of the 3rd Reich? By 3rd Reich mentality, I was obviously not referring to their ecomonic programme, but to the atmosphere of paranoia they created by encouraging their people to supervise and denounce each other for little reason. Look up "Blockwart".

A revolution in which the working class permenently fears, detests and evades their regime is a revolution not worth fighting for, full stop. I'm with the dissenters.

[communard resolution]

wasnt there a poll or something recently that said more than half of East Germans want the DDR back?

Many Germans wanted Hitler back, many Romanians want Ceaucescu back, many Russians want Stalin back. In a time of dog-eat-dog capitalism, rampant unemployment and general anxiety about the future, a lot of people desire security first and foremost - not the liberation of mankind and working class rule. While readily forgetting about the other side of the coin, they feel nostalgic for regimes that, in their minds, offered them certain securities.

Nostalgia for some 'golden age' that never existed is an unfortunate psychological phenomenon.

Edit - most East Germans I spoke to don't want the GDR back, though. As other posters mentioned before, they envisioned a regime change and a "better GDR" instead of an annex to West Germany.

[manic expression]

To every arguement, there's moralising at the core. Why do you oppose the exploitation of humans by humans? Because deep down, you simply think it's wrong - an abstract and moralising argument.

Don't try to assume what I believe. Exploitation of humans by humans isn't wrong, it's good for some people and terrible for others. I stand against capitalist exploitation because there are two sides in today's society, and while one side is the source of almost all the world's suffering, the other side has shown itself the more creative, productive, compassionate and progressive group. Exploitation isn't wrong, it can be justified by a variety of moral arguments; it's just contrary to the interests of the workers, the people who I'd rather see direct the world (because of the reasons I stated). In short, it's not what I'd like to see the world be based around, it's not what I'd like my family to live through 150 years down the road.

Morality comes from material realities, not the other way around.


Why do I oppose the suppression of the working class by a regime, even if that regime claims to represent the working class? Because deep down, I simply think it's wrong. I don't care what that regime professes to be their reasons for ruling over an entire society this way.

That proves my previous argument, in that your position is essentially a moralizing denunciation of progressives who were doing their best under difficult circumstances (to put it mildly).


If the bourgeoisie were the subject of utmost repression, I would agree with it and wouldn't think of it as wrong in the least. But in the case of the GDR and similar regimes, the working class was the subject of tyranny.

Would you like to back that up?


Do you really believe they wanted to prevent dissenters such as Wolf Biermann from establishing a Fourth Reich? You must be joking.

The DDR actually went after Nazis and punished them for what they did. They went to great lengths to expose the realities of the Nazi monstrosity. So yes, I do think they wanted to stop Nazi sympathizers from regaining positions of influence. Hell, on the other side of the border, former SS officers were becoming the richest men in Germany, so their concerns had a whole lot of merit.


They established a nightmare, allegedly to prevent another. Except I don't actually think they believed in it themselves.

Provide some sort of evidence or basis or reason for this beyond your own personal suspicions.


By 3rd Reich mentality, I was obviously not referring to their ecomonic programme, but to the atmosphere of paranoia they created by encouraging their people to supervise and denounce each other for little reason. Look up "Blockwart".

If I was living Germany after WWII, I'd probably have a touch of paranoia, too. I explained why two posts ago, although it isn't that difficult to imagine.


A revolution in which the working class permenently fears, detests and evades their regime is a revolution not worth fighting for, full stop. I'm with the dissenters.

If only history were so simple! Sure, not everyone liked the fact that the government didn't tolerate dissenters, but you still haven't shown that this was bad for the workers of Germany in the long run. Illustrate a concrete point that demonstrates how the DDR was going against the interests of the workers and we'll have something to discuss.

[communard resolution]

I stand against capitalist exploitation because there are two sides in today's society, and while one side is the source of almost all the world's suffering, the other side has shown itself the more creative, productive, compassionate and progressive group.

You attribute what appears to be intrinsically good qualities to the working class. How does this come about that one side is the source of suffering while the other glows with compassion and progressive-mindedness? Do they have different genetic structures? Or are they all just people, the only difference being that one group was born in a position of privilege -and acted like anybody in their situation would- while the other wasn't?

Would you find exploitation justified if the individuals subjected to exploitation had previously proven to be uncreative, unproductive, uncompassionate, or non-progressive?

My position is straightforward - I reject exploitation of human by human. If that's moralistic, fine - I can live with that.


Exploitation isn't wrong, it can be justified by a variety of moral argumentsWhat would be your personal argument to justify exploitation, and in what situation would you find it justifiable?


That proves my previous argument, in that your position is essentially a moralizing denunciation of progressives who were doing their best under difficult circumstances (to put it mildly).I do believe that many of these people had genuinely progressive intentions when they established their republic, and quite possibly, many of them really acted the best they could. Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough. A factionless communist party modelled on what was supposed to be a temporary measure in the days of the Russian civil war. Where was workers power through the councils, where was workers democracy, where was workers control of the means of production? What good is the formal public ownership of the MOP if it becomes no more than an abstract notion while the working class is deprived of the power and control to actually influence their own situation in any meaningful way?

Given what the GDR turned out to be, I do not believe that 20 or 30 years down the line, these same people actually still believed they were advancing towards communism. By then, it was just a matter justifying their own privileged positions (perhaps even to themselves) through doing "something good for the people", on their behalf.


Would you like to back that up?I've explained in my previous posts how people lived in fear of the regime and, to some extent, of each other. Therefore, the working class was subject to tyranny. Unless you want to claim that the people of the GDR were bourgeoisie while the party was the proletariat, I don't see how that was not so.


The DDR actually went after Nazis and punished them for what they did. They went to great lengths to expose the realities of the Nazi monstrosity. So yes, I do think they wanted to stop Nazi sympathizers from regaining positions of influence. Hell, on the other side of the border, former SS officers were becoming the richest men in Germany, so their concerns had a whole lot of merit.No doubt about that, but we are talking about dissenters in general, not just Nazis. The intolerance towards dissenters - whether Trotskyist, anarchists, or just any other dissenters that were not 'official communists' - exceeded necessary anti-fascist measures by far, and you know that.



Provide some sort of evidence or basis or reason for this beyond your own personal suspicions.I don't need to because my sentence begins with "I don't actually think", which indeed indicates a personal suspiction. It is based on the observation that, as stated above, all manner of non-fascist, anti-fascists and socialists were prosecuted for uttering dissent too. Your claim that all these measures were taken out of fear that the Nazis might come back beggars belief.


Illustrate a concrete point that demonstrates how the DDR was going against the interests of the workers and we'll have something to discuss.The interest of the workers is to be in control. If they live in fear of a regime that controls them, they are not in control. This is against their interests.

[manic expression]

You attribute what appears to be intrinsically good qualities to the working class. How does this come about that one side is the source of suffering while the other glows with compassion and progressive-mindedness? Do they have different genetic structures? Or are they all just people, the only difference being that one group was born in a position of privilege -and acted like anybody in their situation would- while the other wasn't?

Just about every form of music and dance has come from the working class. Just about everything anyone ever uses comes from the working class. Everything I've ever enjoyed has been made by workers. Workers, after having taken power, have shown themselves to be less interested in self-serving murder and more interested in building a society along collective lines. I want those people to run the world, not because they're "better people", but because of those reasons and the ones I mentioned earlier.


Would you find exploitation justified if the individuals subjected to exploitation had previously proven to be uncreative, unproductive, uncompassionate, or non-progressive?

Exploitation can be justified through a number of arguments, the question is with whom you stand with and I've made myself clear on this issue. Your hypothetical, however, is simply immaterial because it's not the case. If water wasn't wet, perhaps I'd enjoy surfing more, but it's a silly thing to think about because it's an inherently impossible circumstance. Presuming that workers are uncreative, inherently reactionary and unproductive are all impossibilities by their own definitions, so it's essentially the same exercise.


My position is straightforward - I reject exploitation of human by human. If that's moralistic, fine - I can live with that.

I never said your position against capitalist exploitation was moralistic, I said your denunciation of the DDR was a moralizing position. I'm not trying to conflate the two, so you shouldn't, either.


What would be your personal argument to justify exploitation, and in what situation would you find it justifiable?

Ask a capitalist, I'm sure s/he'll be happy to tell you. It's not my personal argument so I can't help you.


I do believe that many of these people had genuinely progressive intentions when they established their republic, and quite possibly, many of them really acted the best they could. Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough.

I'm sure they've spent many sleepless nights tormented by this conclusion of yours. However, you're oversimplifying everything to an incredible extent. First, the party was rebuilding half of Germany after the worst war humanity has ever seen, and so I think adopting the measures of the post-war Bolsheviks was quite reasonable. Second, the workers were represented by the party not by direct democracy but through the SEP's democratic centralism; was it perfect? No. Could they have done better? Sure. But we must bear in mind that communists never deal with perfection or the ideal, and everything considered the party did a good job at what it was supposed to do in this regard. Third, after the revolutionary abolition of capitalism following the Red Army liberation of east Germany, the DDR maintained an economy organized along socialist lines.


Given what the GDR turned out to be, I do not believe that 20 or 30 years down the line, these same people actually still believed they were advancing towards communism. By then, it was just a matter justifying their own privileged positions (perhaps even to themselves) through doing "something good for the people", on their behalf.

That's your assumption, if you wish to make it.


I've explained in my previous posts how people lived in fear of the regime and, to some extent, of each other. Therefore, the working class was subject to tyranny. Unless you want to claim that the people of the GDR were bourgeoisie while the party was the proletariat, I don't see how that was not so.

Care to define "tyranny" in a meaningful way? We can't possibly think that the entire working class was "tyrannized", as by 1981, about 22% of the East German working population had membership in the SEP.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xzd2ARX2_1QC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=%22socialist+unity+party%22+percentage&source=bl&ots=nACN92t1yC&sig=KDLjyimPsQMuotInzLoTQzWa7lQ&hl=en&ei=2YzXSq20IIeumAOOquiNBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CC8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

That's a bit more than 1 out of every 5 workers. Would they be "tyrannizing" their own family members and community members when they didn't stand to profit in any way? The idea simply makes no sense, because it wasn't the case. The workers of the DDR were not under "tyranny", the charge has no merit.


No doubt about that, but we are talking about dissenters in general, not just Nazis. The intolerance towards dissenters - whether Trotskyist, anarchists, or just any other dissenters that were not 'official communists' - exceeded necessary anti-fascist measures by far, and you know that.

I did say there was something of an overreaction, yes. However, by the time the DDR came to be the Trotskyist movement had moved away from critical support of the USSR to outright denunciations of all socialist countries; permitting Trotskyists would have threatened the revolutionary gains made by the German workers. Anarchists were sworn enemies of the worker state by definition, so that's self-explanatory. Further, if you read the link I posted, it concedes that the SEP permitted differing views within its cadre, especially on the grassroots level.


I don't need to because my sentence begins with "I don't actually think", which indeed indicates a personal suspiction.

So we agree on that.


The interest of the workers is to be in control. If they live in fear of a regime that controls them, they are not in control. This is against their interests.

As we have seen, a considerable percentage of the workers were members of the ruling party. Were they all living in fear of themselves and/or their fellow cadre? Were their family members living in fear of them?

We need to be specific about this whole thing. As a tangential example, there seems to be this belief that thousands were machine-gunned trying to get over the Berlin Wall. The reality? Less than 200 died, which is under half the number of immigrants who die crossing the Mexican-American border annually. I'm not saying you're saying this, I'm just saying we musn't make blanket statements.

[KurtFF8]

By the way, I don't know if this has been posted already in this thread or not (I apologize if it has and I missed it) but here's a relatively new article by John Green in the Morning Star about the GDR. He also has a new pamphlet called Stasi Hell Or Workers' Paradise? Socialism In The German Democratic Republic - What Can We Learn From It?


Looking back at life in the GDR (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/features/Looking-back-at-life-in-the-GDR)



Sixty years ago the German Democratic Republic was created out of the Soviet Zone of occupied Germany in response to the introduction of a separate currency in the Western sectors and the go-it-alone creation of the Federal Republic in September 1949.
It lasted until 1990 when the people voted to accede to the Federal Republic.
The first GDR government was composed of individuals with a track record of active opposition to the nazi regime. Many had spent years in concentration camps, prison and exile.
They returned determined to build a democratic, anti-fascist Germany. It began life at a great disadvantage compared with West Germany. It comprised only a third of German territory with a population of 17 million, as against 63 million in the west, and was considerably poorer, having little heavy industry and few mineral resources.
One of the GDR's greatest achievements was the creation of a more egalitarian society. Measures were introduced to counter class and gender privilege and increase the educational and career prospects of working-class children.
As a result, the GDR became probably the most egalitarian society in Europe. Full gender equality and equal pay were also enshrined in legislation.
Pay differentials between different groups of employees were minimal so that even top managers or government ministers were hardly wealthy in Western terms.
Even in terms of housing, economic and class difference played little role. All areas contained a mix of professional and working-class people.
This lack of large wealth differentials and class privilege made for a more cohesive and balanced society. For some such egalitarianism was not amenable and the lure of higher salaries and business opportunities in the West remained strong. This led to a steady haemorrhaging of skilled workers and professionals before the wall was built in 1961.
The GDR was a society largely free of existential fears. Everyone had a right to education, a job and a roof over their head. Emphasis was placed on society not on individualism, and on co-operation and solidarity.
This process of socialisation began with nursery children and continued through school and into the workplace and housing estates.
The government argued that the workers who produced the commodities that society needed should be placed at the forefront of society.
Those who did heavy manual work, such as miners or steel workers, enjoyed certain privileges - better wages and health care than those in less strenuous or dangerous professions such as office work or teaching.
There were workplace clinics, doctors and dentists attached to large factories and institutions.
The workplace and trade union were largely responsible for ensuring medical care, the provision of leisure and holiday facilities and childcare, even down to the most personal issues of finding accommodation.
The trade union owned and ran a whole number of rest homes, sanatoriums and holiday accommodation used by the workforce and their families for nominal prices.
This system helped to solve working parents' problems of caring for their children during school holidays.
By the 1980s around 80 per cent of the population was able to go on some form of holiday, although most of these would be taken in the GDR itself, many in one of such centres at very low prices.
No worker could be sacked, unless for serious misconduct or incompetence. However, even in such cases, other alternative work would be offered.
The other side of the coin was that there was also a social obligation to work - the GDR had no system of unemployment benefit because the concept of unemployment did not exist.
Pay levels in general were not high compared with Western standards. But everyone knew that the profits they created would go into the "social pot" and used to make life better for everyone, not just for a few owners or shareholders who would pocket the surplus.
Most people recognised that the surplus they created helped increase what was called the "social wage" - subsidised food, clothing and rent, cheap public transport and inexpensive tickets for cultural, sporting and leisure activities.
The idea of a social wage is a vital concept for any society purporting to be egalitarian. It was instrumental in ensuring the implementation of greater social equality, undermining privilege and class hegemony.
Although most people lived in rented accommodation at controlled and affordable rents, a considerable minority owned their own houses and some built their own privately owned houses.
Rents remained virtually unchanged over the life of the GDR and no-one could be evicted from their home. There was therefore no homelessness or fear of becoming homeless.
From a country with few raw materials and an underdeveloped industry devastated by the second world war, the GDR rose to become the fifth strongest economy in Europe and among the 10 strongest in the world.
The economy was characterised by central planning. This enabled the government to plan growth, set priorities and determine where to invest, but there was the downside that such centralised planning on such a scale could be inflexible and cumbersome.
However, a vital factor holding back the GDR economy was a strict boycott by Western governments, preventing the export of advanced technology.
Over 90 per cent of all assets in the GDR were owned by the people in the form of "publicly owned enterprises" (VEBs).
By contrast, in the Federal Republic a mere 10 per cent of households owned 42 per cent of all private wealth and 50 per cent of households owned only 4.5 per cent.
After the war, large estates owned by the former landed aristocracy, the Junkers, were broken up. Five hundred estates were expropriated and converted into co-operatives or state farms and thousands of acres distributed among 500,000 peasant farmers, agricultural labourers and refugees.
Later the government encouraged, sometimes cajoled and pressured farmers to join co-operative farms, but farmers retained ownership rights to their land.
By 1960 nearly 85 per cent of all arable land was incorporated into agricultural co-operatives.
In 1989 there were 3,844 agricultural co-ops and these were one of the big achievements of the GDR, proving to be efficient and better for the workforce.
For the first time in history, agricultural workers were freed from round-the-clock work just to make a living.
With agricultural co-operatives run on an industrial scale, workers enjoyed fixed-hours working and shift systems, had regular holidays, childcare, training opportunities and workplace canteens. All this certainly helped stem the flight from the countryside to the towns.
For the first time in Germany, women enjoyed completely equal rights with men, both in their personal sphere and the workplace.
They were provided with the means and opportunities of developing their careers and personalities beyond or instead of their traditional roles in the home, as wives, mothers and daughters.
Some 91 per cent of women between the ages of 16 and 60 were in work. Most women viewed success in their careers as a main source of fulfilment - this is about the same percentage as for men.
Some 88 per cent of all adult women worked and a further 8.5 per cent were in full-time education.
Most women were also highly skilled. Only 6 per cent had no qualification at all, whereas in the Federal Republic 24 per cent had none.
Despite these figures, in the top echelons of government and party male patriarchy still persisted.
The country's record on internationalism was exemplary. It took the idea of solidarity with other, struggling nations seriously.
It sent doctors and other medical staff to the front line in Vietnam, Mozambique and Angola. It gave engineering, educational and military support to many countries.
It also gave numerous foreign students from countries struggling to free themselves from the legacy of colonialism free training and education in the GDR.
Of course the GDR had a whole number of serious shortcomings and in terms of individual rights and democracy left a lot to be desired.
But to dwell only on these aspects as the mainstream media in the West has done, is to ignore its genuine achievements.
Since its demise, many have come to recognise and regret that the genuine "social achievements" they enjoyed have now been dismantled.
Unfortunately, the collapse of the GDR and "state socialism" in 1989 came just before the collapse of the highly lauded "free market" system in the West.