East Germany, Was it Working?

[Bostana]

Was East Germany a good example of a Communist country or was it not? If it wasn't to what time period did it go bad?

[Brosip Tito]

Was East Germany a good example of a Communist country or was it not? If it wasn't to what time period did it go bad?
Obviously you haven't spent much time reading Marx, though it's not surprising seeing as you are an ML. Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Was East Germany any of this? (rhetorical question is rhetorical).

Let's take a step back. Was it in the lower phase of communism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? No. Political power, and therefore the means of production, were not in the hands of the proletariat. It was the same state capitalist mess as was the Soviet Union.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Was East Germany a good example of a Communist country or was it not?

A dungeon with a safety net. They had to build a great big wall to stop people from leaving. That was never a promising sign.


If it wasn't to what time period did it go bad?

Yalta Conference, 1945! The poor bastards never had a hope!

[Omsk]

Hello comrade!

East Germany was not a 'communist' country - communism was something very distant,and the USSR was just,for an example,socialist.The DDR was at first,a country led by a coalition of parties,not a single vanguard party of the proleteriat,(The head of the country was the SED - "Socialist Unity Party" of Germany,a merger of the SDP and the KPD.(Pre war parties) While it was not communist,it had a 'progressive' background and some serious advances were made during the years of East Germany. It was one of the better 'revisionist' countries of the Eastern Bloc,much ahead of Yugoslavia and,for an example,Hungary.

It had its own version of 'consumer socialism' (Like the Hungarian,and Yugoslav versions.) While the country did prosper,it was not a genuine Marxist-Leninist state,and in my opinion,should not be regarded as some example of a 'ideal' type of a country - we could have done it much bette.

However,the GDR was quite active in the struggles against Western based terrorism and provocationary acts by the West German capitalists,and had a policy of defense and peace,unlike the warmongering West German Bonn cliqe - a branch of American imperialism in Europe.

It was also far from the ''Stasi" land the propaganda tried to present it as,in fact,for the better part of it,the Stasi was spying on the Western capitalists,not some workers in East Berlin.

What is interesting,it was one of the few 'socialist' countries that opposed the traitor Gorbachov,and that infuriated him.

I tried to answer your general question in a brief but informative way,ask if you want some precise information on some specific subject related to the DDR

And don't get intimidated by the users who show what not to do in the learning section.

[Q]

Obviously you haven't spent much time reading Marx, though it's not surprising seeing as you are an ML. Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Was East Germany any of this? (rhetorical question is rhetorical).

Let's take a step back. Was it in the lower phase of communism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? No. Political power, and therefore the means of production, were not in the hands of the proletariat.
Agreed.


It was the same state capitalist mess as was the Soviet Union.
Disagreed. State capitalism is a form of capitalism, the DDR or the USSR were not capitalist in any sense of the word (maybe read some Marx?).

Anyway, the DDR was certainly the highest developed part of East Europe at the time of "really existing socialism", but still it simply couldn't compare to the BRD (West-Germany). There was a reason they build the iron curtain, you know.

Not to mention the Stasi that held, on a population of about 16 million (at the end of the 1980's), files on just about everyone and had a network of informants of about 1 million people (!). It was a bureaucratic nightmare.

Sure, it was better than large parts of Eastern Germany are today: Like they had free education, free healthcare and job security... But to claim that it was communist is plain absurd. It was a thoroughly bureaucratic dictatorship.

[eyeheartlenin]

Anyone who wants to understand East Germany should, by all means, watch The Lives of Others, one of the best political films I have ever seen. The East German state excelled in spying on and intimidating its own citizens, and it was swept away by mass rank and file, popular resistance.

I guess, as post-capitalist police states go, it was fairly prosperous, but human beings can only be denied basic freedoms for so long, and denying people's rights in the name of "socialism" only discredits Marxism and makes it that much harder to win the definitive emancipation of workers. Those who praise the DDR are doing socialism no favors.

[Brosip Tito]

Agreed.


Disagreed. State capitalism is a form of capitalism, the DDR or the USSR were not capitalist in any sense of the word (maybe read some Marx?).

Anyway, the DDR was certainly the highest developed part of East Europe at the time of "really existing socialism", but still it simply couldn't compare to the BRD (West-Germany). There was a reason they build the iron curtain, you know.

Not to mention the Stasi that held, on a population of about 16 million (at the end of the 1980's), files on just about everyone and had a network of informants of about 1 million people (!). It was a bureaucratic nightmare.

Sure, it was better than large parts of Eastern Germany are today: Like they had free education, free healthcare and job security... But to claim that it was communist is plain absurd. It was a thoroughly bureaucratic dictatorship.Really, what was it if it was not capitalism? How do you explain the mass differences in pay between workers and managers? The profiting off the labour of the workers by the party/nomenklatura? The workers did nto hold political power, and therefore did not hold ownership of the MoP which were monoploized by the bureaucratic state and alienated from the direct producers.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Obviously you haven't spent much time reading Marx, though it's not surprising seeing as you are an ML.

And you left communists, Trotskyists, and "non-doctrinaire" communists call us Marxist-Leninists the antagonists. That was extremely rude and you are looking for a tendency war. Come on, you can have your own ideas, but do not insult ours. Yet, I guess the other Marxist-Leninists that have been part of RevLeft longer than I have learned to ignore people like you.


Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Was East Germany any of this? (rhetorical question is rhetorical).

Ever heard of socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat? Go read Marx.


Let's take a step back. Was it in the lower phase of communism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? No. Political power, and therefore the means of production, were not in the hands of the proletariat. It was the same state capitalist mess as was the Soviet Union.

Common ultra-leftist argument. You guys cannot be happy with anything other than your ideal semi-utopia. Even us Marxist-Leninists, who do not agree with the revisionist path of the Warsaw Pact nations after the death of Stalin, do not complain as much.

[Comrade Samuel]

Really, what was it if it was not capitalism?

successful and practical implementation of the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, that is before revisionists and self-obsessed scum rotted them from the inside out.

[Q]

Really, what was it if it was not capitalism? How do you explain the mass differences in pay between workers and managers? The profiting off the labour of the workers by the party/nomenklatura? The workers did nto hold political power, and therefore did not hold ownership of the MoP which were monoploized by the bureaucratic state and alienated from the direct producers.

If it isn't socialism then that doesn't automatically make it capitalism. That is just a simplistic analysis.

Was there a circulation of capital? Was there universal commodity production? Were there crises due to overproduction? Was there a profit incentive in production? Did money really exist as money in the capitalist sense, that is, as a universal exchange commodity?

To all these questions the answer is "no". So, in what way then was it "capitalist"? Please don't use "state capitalism" as a slur.

[Brosip Tito]

And you left communists, Trotskyists, and "non-doctrinaire" communists call us Marxist-Leninists the antagonists. That was extremely rude and you are looking for a tendency war. Come on, you can have your own ideas, but do not insult ours. Yet, I guess the other Marxist-Leninists that have been part of RevLeft longer than I have learned to ignore people like you.I'm not insulting your opinion, I'm telling you it's wrong. As I would a Trotskyist, a Left Communist, etc. when I disagree with them.


Ever heard of socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat? Go read Marx. :rolleyes:

East Germany and the USSR was neither. In fact, if you read Marx, he uses communism and socialism interchangeably, but that's beside the point: East Germany was NOT a DotP.

If YOU read Marx, you would know that since the working class did not hold political power, and the means of production were alienated from the direct producers and monopolized by the bureaucratic party elites (i.e. the bourgeoisie), that East Germany was a capitalist society.


Common ultra-leftist argument. You guys cannot be happy with anything other than your ideal semi-utopia. Even us Marxist-Leninists, who do not agree with the revisionist path of the Warsaw Pact nations after the death of Stalin, do not complain as much.Yes, I am a Marxist whop believes in a semi-utopia...*cough socialism in one country cough*.

I implore you to read Dunayevskaya/CLR James', and even Tony Cliff's articles on State Capitalism.

[Brosip Tito]

If it isn't socialism then that doesn't automatically make it capitalism. That is just a simplistic analysis.

Was there a circulation of capital? Was there universal commodity production? Were there crises due to overproduction? Was there a profit incentive in production? Did money really exist as money in the capitalist sense, that is, as a universal exchange commodity?

To all these questions the answer is "no". So, in what way then was it "capitalist"? Please don't use "state capitalism" as a slur.You then have to explain to me what it was.

Why was this society not mentioned by Marx? Did he not foresee this non-capitalist and non-socialist society?

[Q]

You then have to explain to me what it was.

Why was this society not mentioned by Marx? Did he not foresee this non-capitalist and non-socialist society?

Perhaps his crystal ball needed new batteries?

Seriously though, such a formation was hard to predict and its specific form was mostly a result of a failed revolution in Russia. If, say, the revolution broke out and failed in Germany, I'll bet that Stalinism would have looked like very different in character. How? No clue.

So, what was Russia (and, by extension, the other "really existing socialist" states)? Hillel Ticktin for example argues that it was essentially a non-society (Tickting simply calls this form of society "Stalinism") that was the result of a failed revolution, but where counterrevolution didn't go yet to its logical conclusion. A society that was held together by an all-pervasive bureaucratic apparatus where, when it finally broke down under perestroika and glasnost, meant a disintegration of society itself.

I'll post a video for reference, where he talks on the subject at last years' Communist University:

29505740

[Caj]

Ever heard of socialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat? Go read Marx.

Huh, that's funny. I could have sworn Marx understood socialism as workers' control of the means of production.

Could be wrong though. . . .

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I'm not insulting your opinion, I'm telling you it's wrong.
Thank you, Mister Marxist Overlord. Please educate me.


I implore you to read Dunayevskaya/CLR James', and even Tony Cliff's articles on State Capitalism. Yeah right. I will read Tony Cliff when I Want My Name To Be Spaghetti/Imposter Marxist shoves one of his books into my face.

[Brosip Tito]

Thank you, Mister Marxist Overlord. Please educate me.Har har. Try reading something other than Stalinist propaganda and historical revision.


Yeah right. I will read Tony Cliff when I Want My Name To Be Spaghetti/Imposter Marxist shoves one of his books into my face.
This is why I find ML's impossible to deal with. If it wasn't written by someone who wants to blow Stalin, then it's not going to be read!

So, will you check out Dunayevskaya and CLR James?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This is why I find ML's impossible to deal with. If it wasn't written by someone who wants to blow Stalin, then it's not going to be read!

So, will you check out Dunayevskaya and CLR James?

lol

I'll check all three of them out to expand my horizons, and so people can stop saying that Marxist-Leninists worship Stalin.

[Comrade Samuel]

Har har. Try reading something other than Stalinist propaganda and historical revision.


This is why I find ML's impossible to deal with. If it wasn't written by someone who wants to blow Stalin, then it's not going to be read!

So, will you check out Dunayevskaya and CLR James?

The fact that you use the phrase "Stalinist" is proof enough that YOU are the one who's looking at the propaganda and historical revision here.

I for one had no idea so many of the great authors of the 20th century advocated homosexuality much less towards our glorious overlord, the invisible Stalin! As it would turn out we actualy do read things that contradict what we believe, how else would we make an informed decision on why we think they are giant loads of crap?

Edit: I would also like to apologize to the OP for this tread deteriateing into a tendancy war.

[Q]

Huh, that's funny. I could have sworn Marx understood socialism as workers' control of the means of production.

Could be wrong though. . . .

Actually, what Marx and Engels were talking about was the working class taking over the political reigns of society, thus imposing its hegemony as a class. Marx used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" only about a dozen times throughout his life to describe this, but should be understood as a class hegemony. Likewise, under capitalism we live in the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

The dictatorship of the proletariat can only be the most radical form of democracy we can imagine. Only through democracy can the working class rule as a class-collective and, thus, rules also over the means of production, as private property will simply be abolished, letting the economy genuinely socialize.

But if you implied a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the sense of a state apparatus ruling over society, thus alienated from it, then yes, I agree that this is not what Marx and Engels had in mind at all.

[Caj]

The dictatorship of the proletariat can only be the most radical form of democracy we can imagine. Only through democracy can the working class rule as a class-collective and, thus, rules also over the means of production, as private property will simply be abolished, letting the economy genuinely socialize.

And clearly the DDR fit this description.

(Sarcasm, btw)

[l'Enfermé]

Marx did not foresee the degeneration of a worker's state in a backwards, isolated country, which would infect the eastern parts of Europe with this disease, no.

[l'Enfermé]

Hello comrade!

East Germany was not a 'communist' country - communism was something very distant,and the USSR was just,for an example,socialist.The DDR was at first,a country led by a coalition of parties,not a single vanguard party of the proleteriat,(The head of the country was the SED - "Socialist Unity Party" of Germany,a merger of the SDP and the KPD.(Pre war parties) While it was not communist,it had a 'progressive' background and some serious advances were made during the years of East Germany. It was one of the better 'revisionist' countries of the Eastern Bloc,much ahead of Yugoslavia and,for an example,Hungary.

It had its own version of 'consumer socialism' (Like the Hungarian,and Yugoslav versions.) While the country did prosper,it was not a genuine Marxist-Leninist state,and in my opinion,should not be regarded as some example of a 'ideal' type of a country - we could have done it much bette.

However,the GDR was quite active in the struggles against Western based terrorism and provocationary acts by the West German capitalists,and had a policy of defense and peace,unlike the warmongering West German Bonn cliqe - a branch of American imperialism in Europe.

It was also far from the ''Stasi" land the propaganda tried to present it as,in fact,for the better part of it,the Stasi was spying on the Western capitalists,not some workers in East Berlin.

What is interesting,it was one of the few 'socialist' countries that opposed the traitor Gorbachov,and that infuriated him.

I tried to answer your general question in a brief but informative way,ask if you want some precise information on some specific subject related to the DDR

And don't get intimidated by the users who show what not to do in the learning section.
Comrade Stalin proclaimed Communism in the USSR in 1934, mate.

[GPDP]

Question: who exactly decided the precise form and function of the East German state? I know the Socialist Union party was made up from the ranks of the old KPD and SPD, but did they have a hand in creating the DDR's form of governance? Or did the USSR just impose it from without?

[Omsk]

Comrade Stalin proclaimed Communism in the USSR in 1934, mate.

What?Give me a source on that.


Question: who exactly decided the precise form and function of the East German state? I know the Socialist Union party was made up from the ranks of the old KPD and SPD, but did they have a hand in creating the DDR's form of governance? Or did the USSR just impose it from without?


The German communists.

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't know but Erich Honecker was the MAC!

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It was a deformed workers state. That means, proletarian property forms, with the political power in the hands a bureaucratic Stalinist leadership. That being said, there was a lot that was pretty good there. I have a friend who spent about year in the GDR, and said that while there was a lot of political tension and repression, people all had jobs, and time to talk and hang out. In general, he really like the "atmosphere" much more than in the West. If you were going to be living in a deformed workers state, I would say that, historically, the GDR may have been the one to live in.

But, as the comrades have said and I will echo: Catagorically, this was not communism nor socialism -- by definition it could not be. It was not a classless stateless society. And political power was not in the hands of the working class. So it was neither socialist nor communist nor a healthy workers state.

[Bostana]

Obviously you haven't spent much time reading Marx, though it's not surprising seeing as you are an ML. Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Was East Germany any of this? (rhetorical question is rhetorical).

Let's take a step back. Was it in the lower phase of communism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? No. Political power, and therefore the means of production, were not in the hands of the proletariat. It was the same state capitalist mess as was the Soviet Union.

Sorry for asking the question,

Unlike you I haven't been to East Germany and didn't know if it had classes.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Don't apologize for asking the question. There is still much that is open to debate. Notice that Order Reigns and Lev Bronsteinovich ascribe to two different theories as to the nature of the former East Merman republic.

[Bostana]

Yes, tis most fun to watch them bicker
:D

[Bostana]

Comrade Stalin proclaimed Communism in the USSR in 1934, mate.

No he didn't
:D

The Soviet Union was proclaimed in 1922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

[gorillafuck]

Huh, that's funny. I could have sworn Marx understood socialism as workers' control of the means of production.

Could be wrong though. . . .I know you're being sarcastic, but he didn't really outline how socialism would function.

[Brosip Tito]

Sorry for asking the question,

Unlike you I haven't been to East Germany and didn't know if it had classes.I haven't been to East Germany. I mean, you don't have to be somewhere to come to a conclusion based on what you've read.

Unlike you I haven't been to America and didn't know if it had air.

[Bostana]

I haven't been to East Germany. I mean, you don't have to be somewhere to come to a conclusion based on what you've read.

Unlike you I haven't been to America and didn't know if it had air.

But wait, I mean you just know sooo much about it you must have been there.

[Per Levy]

It was also far from the ''Stasi" land the propaganda tried to present it as,in fact,for the better part of it,the Stasi was spying on the Western capitalists,not some workers in East Berlin.

actually, yes, the stasi spend an enormous amount of time and recources to spy on ordinary workers in the gdr. or explain to me why my parents had files on them, or my colleagues who i work with today? they were and stil are all ordinary workers. sadly i was to young and didnt had a file on me.


What is interesting,it was one of the few 'socialist' countries that opposed the traitor Gorbachov,and that infuriated him.

unlike the majority of people of the gdr who actually liked gorachov. that the party leaders didnt like him is pretty clear, after all gorbi wanted to sell them out to the west.
---
in general, the gdr wasnt dotp nor was it socialist, the workers had no say in what was going on.

[Brosip Tito]

But wait, I mean you just know sooo much about it you must have been there.
Yes. I was also in the USSR, Albania, and every "socialist" paradise like every ML on revleft.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Comrade Stalin proclaimed Communism in the USSR in 1934, mate.

Nope, nobody on this planet has proclaimed "communism." Maybe you mean that was the year he proclaimed socialism.


No he didn't
:D

The Soviet Union was proclaimed in 1922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union [/QUOTE)

He was talking about proclaiming communism, not the nation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


Yes. I was also in the USSR, Albania, and every "socialist" paradise like every ML on revleft.

Yeah, and Dante Alighieri actually went to hell.

[Kassad]

The fact that you use the phrase "Stalinist" is proof enough that YOU are the one who's looking at the propaganda and historical revision here.


Stupid. By that standard, calling someone a reactionary, a fascist or whatever cannot be applied just because you don't like the phrasing. I'm sure reactionaries don't either. The truth of the matter is that much of the international communist movement was and continues to be shaped by a Stalinist model, to some extent. The Stalin school of party building carried over significantly into China, Albania and other countries, albeit their being significant differences in certain sectors.

Anyway, I'm not here to make this a big debate about the term Stalinist, but if you don't like the term, debate its merits. Don't just write it off. That's not what scientific Marxism is about.

[Kassad]

But wait, I mean you just know sooo much about it you must have been there.

Seriously? I've never been around the equator, but I'm sure it's a little to hot for my tastes. I actually have had the chance to discuss what Eastern Germany was really like with some friends of mine who are more Maoist leaning than I am. At the time, one of them was building the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in Europe.

If you don't think some sort of bureaucracy existed in much of the eastern socialist bloc, then you obviously don't know what the term means. It's not a black and white issue, however. What happens when you put an industrialized, military-industrial power against a world power in its infant stages? That's why the arms race was the smartest strategic move the United States ever made. They knew they could plunge the Soviet economy into the ground, while also promoting counterrevolutionary forces in the Soviet bloc to beat back what gains of the revolutions still existed. There are a really vast amount of resources on this topic that you can research, as opposed to making ridiculously inane comments.

[Grenzer]

Seems like there is a lot of debating about the nature of the DDR as to whether it was state capitalist, historical anomaly, or a socialist state. This aside, we all seem to agree that the DDR was not "working" as the OP asked.

This seems to be yet another example of how "socialism in one country" does not work. The dominant global mode of production was capitalism, as such, regardless of whether the DDR was socialist or what have you, it was damned to move steadily in the direction of capitalism. I think the OP's question is symptomatic of a certain kind of narrow minded thinking(I don't mean offense by this) in that we should not not be saying "Is this working" at a national level, but an international level. Is the world moving towards socialism, or is it moving towards capitalism?

I am sure the sophists among us would say that by working towards capitalism, we are working towards socialism; but the OP probably means more in a direct sense. I don't mean to get off topic to much, but this again goes back to the question of the so called "Theory" of Socialism in One Country.

Marxist-Leninists often claim that SiOC is not a rejection of internationalism. I would agree. Instead, it is a rejection of internationalism as a practical necessity; and relegates internationalism to the role of an ideal. If socialism can be built in one country, then why the hell should workers in a socialist country give a shit about workers in a capitalist country? If socialism in one country is true, then there is no material reason why they should. The question to be asking is not "is socialism being built in x country" but "Is socialism being built in the world?"

[Psy]

Seems like there is a lot of debating about the nature of the DDR as to whether it was state capitalist, historical anomaly, or a socialist state. This aside, we all seem to agree that the DDR was not "working" as the OP asked.

This seems to be yet another example of how "socialism in one country" does not work. The dominant global mode of production was capitalism, as such, regardless of whether the DDR was socialist or what have you, it was damned to move steadily in the direction of capitalism. I think the OP's question is symptomatic of a certain kind of narrow minded thinking(I don't mean offense by this) in that we should not not be saying "Is this working" at a national level, but an international level. Is the world moving towards socialism, or is it moving towards capitalism?

I am sure the sophists among us would say that by working towards capitalism, we are working towards socialism; but the OP probably means more in a direct sense. I don't mean to get off topic to much, but this again goes back to the question of the so called "Theory" of Socialism in One Country.

Marxist-Leninists often claim that SiOC is not a rejection of internationalism. I would agree. Instead, it is a rejection of internationalism as a practical necessity; and relegates internationalism to the role of an ideal. If socialism can be built in one country, then why the hell should workers in a socialist country give a shit about workers in a capitalist country? If socialism in one country is true, then there is no material reason why they should. The question to be asking is not "is socialism being built in x country" but "Is socialism being built in the world?"
I don't the DDR and the larger Comecon was doomed to moving towards becoming more openly capitalists. The Comecon could have gone the other way and reacted to the stagnation through worker uprisings revolting and recreating the Comecon as a unified workers state that then would have to deal with the longer term revolutionary goal of world revolution.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A dungeon with a safety net. They had to build a great big wall to stop people from leaving. That was never a promising sign.

"Dungeon" might be taking it a bit too far. It wasn't that bad in the DDR, certainly better than most other places in the eastern bloc.

Still wasn't anything to emulate, though.

[Ostrinski]

Didn't even take ten posts this time to get things rollin'. I am proud. Though I guess the topic commands it.

The DDR functioned along the same lines as the rest of the Eastern Bloc, though living conditions were better there than most other parts of it, owing to the preexisting superior infrastructure and machinery. Like the west, proletarians still had shitty jobs, unlike the west, there was some stability within them. Decent education. Shitty consumer products.

[Omsk]

actually, yes, the stasi spend an enormous amount of time and recources to spy on ordinary workers in the gdr. or explain to me why my parents had files on them, or my colleagues who i work with today? they were and stil are all ordinary workers. sadly i was to young and didnt had a file on me.


Well,you can say that the Stasi was no worse than the other int. organizations of the time,and accounts are always different,there are people who say the Stasi wasn't the "monster" the West tries to present it like,and people who claim the exact opposite,that it was a 'monster'.




unlike the majority of people of the gdr who actually liked gorachov. that the party leaders didnt like him is pretty clear, after all gorbi wanted to sell them out to the west.


I am not sure if Gorbachov was all too popular within the DDR.

[Rafiq]

East Germany, does it still exist?

[Q]

East Germany, does it still exist?

Every country has an east and a west ;)

[Dark Matter]

HAh you have stalin for an avatar :laugh:
and you are an marxsist-leninist :rolleyes:
Just for some extra info Lenin and Trotsky hated Stalin. Stalin got where he was by cheating. Will explain later.

Now for about that stateless community is UTOPIAN,cuz people are how would i say they are to "pussy like",they cant live without their ipad, big sky scrapers,million dollar movie... etc etc. People arent read for such big step,and they will never be,when evolution "made" us it thought that we will sit on trees eat some ants and bananas in such society stateless society is possible. -This was an really stupid compare :p

Now every single state that made it self to socialistic weren't actually socialistic :P,they got corrupted cuz of DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAN,every dictatorship is corrupted,and for some other info Marxs writed on his and Engels manifesto about dictatorship of proletarian class so stop with that stateless thinks.


And all the countires that did this,had very BIG problems
1. everyone needed to be socialist to even got an job or to live normal lives
2. Free Speech Forbidden
3. Everything was made by force
4. They had an freaking Sered police that spied on everyone
and so on

[Grenzer]

I don't the DDR and the larger Comecon was doomed to moving towards becoming more openly capitalists. The Comecon could have gone the other way and reacted to the stagnation through worker uprisings revolting and recreating the Comecon as a unified workers state that then would have to deal with the longer term revolutionary goal of world revolution.

This seems like wild speculation frankly. We are talking about history here, so such claims should be backed up by evidence. Is there any significant evidence to suggest that the DDR was moving towards socialism? This is a ridiculous claim. The idea that the workers would just rise up spontaneously with no build up of class consciousness seems utopian and insane.

[Omsk]

and you are an marxsist-leninist


The correct term is "Marxist-Leninist".


Stalin got where he was by cheating.

You do not become a head of state by 'cheating' - such notions are ridiculous.




Just for some extra info Lenin and Trotsky hated Stalin.


What a deep analysis of a complicated relationship between some of the most important figures in Russian and world history.Lenin did have some issues with Stalin,disagreements,but overall,they were really close,as comrades and leaders.


DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAN


"Dictatorship of the Proleteriat" is the correct term.In fact,the USSR was a DotP - but you have a wrong idea on what the DotP was,it was a :

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.

[Rafiq]

HAh you have stalin for an avatar :laugh:
and you are an marxsist-leninist :rolleyes:
Just for some extra info Lenin and Trotsky hated Stalin. Stalin got where he was by cheating. Will explain later.

Now for about that stateless community is UTOPIAN,cuz people are how would i say they are to "pussy like",they cant live without their ipad, big sky scrapers,million dollar movie... etc etc. People arent read for such big step,and they will never be,when evolution "made" us it thought that we will sit on trees eat some ants and bananas in such society stateless society is possible. -This was an really stupid compare :p

Now every single state that made it self to socialistic weren't actually socialistic :P,they got corrupted cuz of DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAN,every dictatorship is corrupted,and for some other info Marxs writed on his and Engels manifesto about dictatorship of proletarian class so stop with that stateless thinks.


And all the countires that did this,had very BIG problems
1. everyone needed to be socialist to even got an job or to live normal lives
2. Free Speech Forbidden
3. Everything was made by force
4. They had an freaking Sered police that spied on everyone
and so on

Marxism Leninism is identical to Stalinism.

(I ignored the rest of your idealist simplistic horse shit post)

[Bostana]

Yes. I was also in the USSR, Albania, and every "socialist" paradise like every ML on revleft.

Okay nice to know you didn't get the point.

[Bostana]

He was talking about proclaiming communism, not the nation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Which makes it even more ridiculously stupid.

[Rooster]

East Germany was just like West Germany, more or less, but just more poor. You might not have had all of the best stuff but you had a social safety net. The main problem was the repressive police state and the total lack of democracy. If you were visiting, you would expect your van to be searched daily. Your television was made so that you couldn't pick up signals from the West, etc. The question as to whether it worked or not? It obviously didn't as it doesn't exist anymore.

[Rooster]

"Dictatorship of the Proleteriat" is the correct term.In fact,the USSR was a DotP - but you have a wrong idea on what the DotP was,it was a :

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.

Oh for fuck sake, just fuck off. The DotP is "the organisation of the vanguard". Give me a fucking break. Just quoting Lenin does not equal an argument. We have the benefit of hindsight here. The USSR wasn't the DotP according to even Lenin here! Everything was state controlled, there was no democracy, no worker participation in production, top down management, quotas to be filled, people thrown into jail for not being able to work. Awesome democracy, man.

[Ocean Seal]

Agreed.
Disagreed. State capitalism is a form of capitalism, the DDR or the USSR were not capitalist in any sense of the word (maybe read some Marx?).

Anyway, the DDR was certainly the highest developed part of East Europe at the time of "really existing socialism", but still it simply couldn't compare to the BRD (West-Germany). There was a reason they build the iron curtain, you know.

Not to mention the Stasi that held, on a population of about 16 million (at the end of the 1980's), files on just about everyone and had a network of informants of about 1 million people (!). It was a bureaucratic nightmare.

Sure, it was better than large parts of Eastern Germany are today: Like they had free education, free healthcare and job security... But to claim that it was communist is plain absurd. It was a thoroughly bureaucratic dictatorship.
I agree with most of this post with the exception of the part on the iron curtain.
The reason being isn't that it wasn't able to compete with the BRD but rather the fact that there were chronic terrorist attacks on East German soil. It could compete with est Germany across the board fairly well, with the exception of the fact that they couldn't pay their professionals enough to stay in the country. So I suppose that was an important respect in which the west had it beat.

[Omsk]

Oh for fuck sake, just fuck off. The DotP is "the organisation of the vanguard". Give me a fucking break. Just quoting Lenin does not equal an argument. We have the benefit of hindsight here. The USSR wasn't the DotP according to even Lenin here! Everything was state controlled, there was no democracy, no worker participation in production, top down management, quotas to be filled, people thrown into jail for not being able to work. Awesome democracy, man.

The diametrically opposite stances and our fully different views on the Soviet Union represent an insurmountable barrier in the discussion, neither I nor you will change our positions, as it is obvious,and the absurdity of such a conversation should not be tolerated,especially in the learning section of the main forums.As this thread was supposed to serve as a source of information about the former state [DDR], a discussion should be more about the nature of the mentioned state,rather than the less important details,and the ever present question of the USSR.Lets not turn every thread into something as that.

[Rooster]

The diametrically opposite stances and our fully different views on the Soviet Union represent an insurmountable barrier in the discussion, neither I nor you will change our positions, as it is obvious,and the absurdity of such a conversation should not be tolerated,especially in the learning section of the main forums.As this thread was supposed to serve as a source of information about the former state [DDR], a discussion should be more about the nature of the mentioned state,rather than the less important details,and the ever present question of the USSR.Lets not turn every thread into something as that.

You just came in here and said that the DotP is the organisation of the vanguard. The problem with you is that you have no real conception of socialism beyond the bourgeois definition of it. You provide no arguments, just endless quotes of people who would support such a definition like it was proof even in the face of historical facts. The nature of the state? It was hardly the DotP.

[Omsk]

You just came in here and said that the DotP is the organisation of the vanguard. The problem with you is that you have no real conception of socialism beyond the bourgeois definition of it. You provide no arguments, just endless quotes of people who would support such a definition like it was proof even in the face of historical facts. The nature of the state? It was hardly the DotP.


In my original post,that i wrote in an attempt to give the user who went out with his little anti-'authoritarian' rant,a picture of what the DotP really is - not a dictatorship in the original sense of the term,but the struggle of the oppressed masses against their exploiters and class enemies,and a rule of the former,oppressed masses - the proleteriat - in such a 'dictatorship' the entire societal class holds political and economic control.He saw it as some situation which was a typical dictatorship in the right-wing sense of the word,and in theory,and reality,it was not such a type of state and economic organization.And how is my only conception of socialism the bourgeois 'idea' of it?There were worker's councils in the former Soviet Union,the Soviets,the larger political bodies,the workers unions and democratically (not in the bourgeois sense of the word) elected groups of individuals who represented the collective and the interests of the collective,however,such groups were quite large and had to deal with all kinds of problems,while maintaining the policy of accepting as much as people as they could.However,that was the smaller,sized-down version of the organization,on the larger level was the Vanguard party - the main exponent of the working class and the active organizer and combatant in the class war which is led by the working class,but protected and further organized by the Vanguard party.As Marx and Engels put up: "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." - However,the job was not finished in Russia,and the revolution was destined and planned to travel,to reach all corners of the world,and to effect the very foundations of the capitalist system by attacking it where it had it's greateast weakness,but,this was not something which could have been acomplished with ease,and,as we know,the right-wing reaction succeeded in their violent fight against the progressive elements of the societies in Europe,[Germany,Hungary,Yugoslavia] and the revolutionary forcess soon found themselves surrounded by hostile countries,but friendly workers,and they tried and did their best to organize the international struggle against imperialism,and capitalism.The Vanguard is not some kind of a horrible monster,but the embodiment of radicalism and is the most militant section.A Vanguard is necessary and is one of the main elements of the Leninist ideology,and something which is needed if our movement expects any chance of actually making progress at all.However,this is already so very far from the original topic of the discussion which is almost unrecognizable,as the usual sectarian and counter-productive traits of the left kicked in and made any serious historical and theoretical discussion even possible.So we should either continue this (That is,if you actually have any interest in continuing this discussion.) via the profile messages or maybe,in another dicussion thread?

And for the last part of your post,that to my surprise,has something to do with the actual dicussion subject, - no one here claimed the DDR was a DotP,and i think the majority of the users here share my opinion on that one,for instance,i wrote a short,unpretentious 'analysis' on the DDR,from the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint,and,while it may be different for obvious reasons,it shares one common argue point as the other ones - the DDR was not a DotP,and it was not a socialist country.However,was it a horrible dungeon?I don't think so.Was it paradise for the workers?No,it was not.Was it a common coalition led East Bloc country in the time period 60'-90' ,but,with a better standard of living and a much better leadership?Yes,it was.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would have to conclude that the DotP never existed in the DDR. The material conditions both in the Soviet Union and the Soviet-occupied zone of Germany were certainly dreadful in 1945, and establishing a DotP there would have been difficult as best and perhaps in 1945 it would have been impossible.

Where the DDR failed IMO is that as conditions in eastern Germany normalized, a party dictatorship was installed and maintained by Soviet military occupational authorities. Therefore, much as in the rest of the eastern bloc with the exceptions of Yugoslavia and Albania, the people's democracies NEVER gained popular legitimacy rather they were seem as a function of force and occupation. Despite the fact that the DDR was able to afford its citizens a decent livelihood by the 1960s, they had to build a wall and shot people who were attempting to flee the country. Doesn't that speak volumes?

[Psy]

This seems like wild speculation frankly. We are talking about history here, so such claims should be backed up by evidence. Is there any significant evidence to suggest that the DDR was moving towards socialism? This is a ridiculous claim. The idea that the workers would just rise up spontaneously with no build up of class consciousness seems utopian and insane.
The workers were already rising up the problem was they had no direction other then fighting the state. Thus in the Comecon is could have collapsed into workers revolution if the workers remained militant and fought the capitalists as they tried to fill the vacuum. We almost way this in Russia in 1993 where there was a movement fighting against Yeltsin's capitalists revolution yet this movement was not large enough to assimilate the Russian state.

[Bostana]

Stalin Cheated to Win the Election?

WOW, That's one of the dumbest excuses Trotsky could come up with. I can't believe you're buying into that BS.

Trotsky was in a pissy mood because he was rejected by the Soviet People so he joined a counter revolution group. Then he try to start a Vanguard party (because he is a dumb ass)

So he made up all these lies about Stalin to justify his case. Most of the USSR didn't believe him because his claims were to stupid and crazy. One being that Stalin Cheated the elections.

Even if Stalin did cheat (which he didn't) who would care? The USSR was only true to Communism when Stalin was in charge. And then during his tragic death, in which all of the USSR was in attendance, Khrushchev was elected and started the USSR on the path to revisionism . Which was also a Trotsky Idea.

Only a select few buy into this Stalin crap. Which are Khrushchev, Trotsky, Trotskyists, and you

[GoddessCleoLover]

Since this thread is supposed to be about the DDR I would be curious to know why if Stalin was so "true to Communism" he is today so reviled not just in the DDR but in Poland and other former Warsaw pact countries as well?

[Bostana]

I don't know?

Why is Trotsky reviled by everybody?

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO Karl Marx, Rosa Luxemberg, and Antonio Gramsci contributed more theoretically than Stalin or Trotsky. I neither revile nor worship Trotsky, rather view him like Nikolai Bukharin as a Russian revolutionary leader who made some important contributions, had some flaws, and met a tragic end. Perhaps all of us would do better by the workers if we worried less about long-dead Russian revolutionaries and more about the working class.

Back to the subject of the DDR. How many of us can agree on the proposition that the fact that the DDR fenced people in and shot those trying to escape betrays a certain lack of working class rule there?

[Bostana]

IMO Karl Marx, Rosa Luxemberg, and Antonio Gramsci contributed more theoretically than Stalin or Trotsky. I neither revile nor worship Trotsky, rather view him like Nikolai Bukharin as a Russian revolutionary leader who made some important contributions, had some flaws, and met a tragic end. Perhaps all of us would do better by the workers if we worried less about long-dead Russian revolutionaries and more about the working class.

Back to the subject of the DDR. How many of us can agree on the proposition that the fact that the DDR fenced people in and shot those trying to escape betrays a certain lack of working class rule there?

What was Stalin suppose to add?

He wasn't a philosopher. He was a man who successfully led the USSR to proper Communism. Marx, Engels, and Lenin contributed enough to make proper Communism. All Stalin did was lead the people down the path they taught.

Obviously I didn't know East Germany had classes that's why I asked the question.
If I knew they had classes I wouldn't of asked the Question!!

[GoddessCleoLover]

Asking the question was an excellent idea. Just hope that you keep an open mind as to whether Stalin indeed led the Soviet peoples down the best path. Back to the subject of East Germany, if Stalin's leadership were as it ought to have been wouldn't there be some vestige of popularity among the workers of eastern Europe?

[Bostana]

Asking the question was an excellent idea. Just hope that you keep an open mind as to whether Stalin indeed led the Soviet peoples down the best path. Back to the subject of East Germany, if Stalin's leadership were as it ought to have been wouldn't there be some vestige of popularity among the workers of eastern Europe?


Stalin Did have the USSR in proper Communsim.

It was revisionism by Khrushchev, Imperialism by Brezhnev, and Idiocy by Gorbachev.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps we ought to agree to disagree agreeably. On the topic of the DDR I believe that the policy of shooting people attempting to flee originates from the time of Stalin. Seems like a rather unduly harsh thing to do to someone who poses no threat but is just trying to leave.

[Bostana]

Perhaps we ought to agree to disagree agreeably. On the topic of the DDR I believe that the policy of shooting people attempting to flee originates from the time of Stalin. Seems like a rather unduly harsh thing to do to someone who poses no threat but is just trying to leave.

And I think the policy of betraying the Soviet Union and giving information to British, French, and German spies because you were rejected by the Soviet Union falls into the Trotsky Slot.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Many people shot while fleeing the DDR were workers. Is this the DotP? On some level I can understand the decision to assassinate Trotsky, as Trotsky was seeking to overthrow Stalin via a "political revolution", but I cannot understand the decision to shoot to kill a worker expressing her or his dissatisfaction by leaving for another land. Did you misunderstand my post, or do you rally regard anyone who wanted to flee as a traitor? I so, how is such a concept consistent with the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Bostana]

Many people shot while fleeing the DDR were workers. Is this the DotP? On some level I can understand the decision to assassinate Trotsky, as Trotsky was seeking to overthrow Stalin via a "political revolution", but I cannot understand the decision to shoot to kill a worker expressing her or his dissatisfaction by leaving for another land. Did you misunderstand my post, or do you rally regard anyone who wanted to flee as a traitor? I so, how is such a concept consistent with the dictatorship of the proletariat?


When has Stalin ever ordered to shoot a worker? Even if he did that doesn't justify Trotsky betraying the Soviet people to the French, British, and German now does it?
I thought you were talking about Trotsky trying to "flee"

[Ostrinski]

Why is Trotsky reviled by everybody?You haven't seen the American left then.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Fair enough. It was a reasonable misunderstanding. Nonetheless, the is a real and tragic history of workers being repressed by their vanguard party. I can't prove that Stalin gave the orders as I don't have his archives at my disposal. Suffice to say that repression was sufficiently widespread that it was likely approved at the highest level.

Getting back to this thread on the DDR, the German working class had a great history of class consciousness and revolutionary activity dating from the living years of Marx and Engels until the Nazis crushed the German workers' movement. Even today, German workers from the former DDR often support Die Linke, which is well to the left of the SPD. The alienation of the German working class from the DDR is a tragedy from which revolutionaries ought to draw the lesson that the vanguard must never supplant the working class.

[Bostana]

Fair enough. It was a reasonable misunderstanding. Nonetheless, the is a real and tragic history of workers being repressed by their vanguard party. I can't prove that Stalin gave the orders as I don't have his archives at my disposal. Suffice to say that repression was sufficiently widespread that it was likely approved at the highest level.

Good that Argument Done.


Getting back to this thread on the DDR, the German working class had a great history of class consciousness and revolutionary activity dating from the living years of Marx and Engels until the Nazis crushed the German workers' movement. Even today, German workers from the former DDR often support Die Linke, which is well to the left of the SPD. The alienation of the German working class from the DDR is a tragedy from which revolutionaries ought to draw the lesson that the vanguard must never supplant the working class.

True it even though Marx and Engels were basically living in Germany the workers class their has been through some hard times and unfortunately East Germany was un able to provide true Communism

[Ocean Seal]

Oh for fuck sake, just fuck off. The DotP is "the organisation of the vanguard". Give me a fucking break. Just quoting Lenin does not equal an argument. We have the benefit of hindsight here. The USSR wasn't the DotP according to even Lenin here! Everything was state controlled, there was no democracy, no worker participation in production, top down management, quotas to be filled, people thrown into jail for not being able to work. Awesome democracy, man.
Without regards to whether or not the USSR was a dotP (or at which point it stopped being one) I think that we need to acknowledge that the dotP is an organization of a vanguard, and that never has there been a revolution without one. The dotP is organized by a vanguard party and the economy must be a planned economy. We cannot attempt to distort the idea of workers control to an economy which doesn't have something like a quota system especially in the early stages of revolution. What exactly is wrong with quotas? The workers of one factory cannot decide to produce or to not produce a critical ingredient for the socialist construction. That seems absurd to give a series of small groups of people complete control over the gears that grind society. In the real world we will see the economy planned by the state in tandem with the workers and a system of quotas, labor vouchers, and production for one purpose (that being human need and internationalism).

[GoddessCleoLover]

Fair enough, but IMO the trickier question involves precisely who has the power to make the policy decisions that you have described. Granting such a power to one party that is designated as the vanguard party and and entrusted with state power would seem to be invitation to repeat the same tragedies that led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the de facto restoration of capitalism in China. OTOH assuring that democratic organs of working class rule make such policy decisions would seem to be the better alternative. In the broadest terms this would involve real workers' "soviets"/councils wielding real power at the workplace. On the planning level, these workplace councils could designate members to constitute economic planning policy-making commissions. Whatever we design has to be more democratic and representative or real workers' democracy that the Soviet, Chinese and other models that have been tested and failed to provide workers' democracy.

[Rooster]

Without regards to whether or not the USSR was a dotP (or at which point it stopped being one) I think that we need to acknowledge that the dotP is an organization of a vanguard, and that never has there been a revolution without one.

Aye right, says who? It's in plain contradiction to the historical facts. The Russian revolution happened because of the proletariat, not because of a "vanguard" or even the presence of a "vanguard".


The dotP is organized by a vanguard party and the economy must be a planned economy.Says who? It's such a demeaning position to hold.


We cannot attempt to distort the idea of workers control to an economy which doesn't have something like a quota system especially in the early stages of revolution. What exactly is wrong with quotas? The workers of one factory cannot decide to produce or to not produce a critical ingredient for the socialist construction. That seems absurd to give a series of small groups of people complete control over the gears that grind society. In the real world we will see the economy planned by the state in tandem with the workers and a system of quotas, labor vouchers, and production for one purpose (that being human need and internationalism).Fuck sake. What exactly are you talking about here? Capitalism or socialism? Who do you think grinds the gears of society as it is? Who do you think runs the factories and makes things and takes stock and orders stock? Hmm, I wonder which class actually does all of this on a daily basis already within capitalism.. hmm... Yes yes, and your appeals to "the real world" makes your argument completely sound. And here's me just talking some sort of imaginary world. Still, I have to ask, is this planned economy of yours socialism or capitalism?


What was Stalin suppose to add?

He wasn't a philosopher. He was a man who successfully led the USSR to proper Communism.

The fact that you're saying that kinda shows he either added something or you've just misunderstood things.

So, proper communism, hmm? Was the USSR stateless, classless and money less?

[Bostana]

The fact that you're saying that kinda shows he either added something or you've just misunderstood things.

So, proper communism, hmm? Was the USSR stateless, classless and money less?

Pre-1953, before Stalin died, the USSR was at it's best and truest in communism. There were no classes, no jobless, no homeless, and no cooperations.

[Rooster]

Pre-1953, before Stalin died, the USSR was at it's best and truest in communism. There were no classes, no jobless, no homeless, and no cooperations.

Wow, just fucking wow. I'm amazed. Truly you know nothing of what you talk about. I'm guessing you hinge on the same definition of what communism is. So, how many classes did Stalin say existed in socialism? What was it? Oh... I believe he said that there were two: the proletariat and the poorer peasants. Classless? Please. Even so, where was the revolution that brought the bourgeoisie back in? Where was the invading army? Are you telling me that classes can evolve class power without so? It wouldn't be surprising as this is the usual Stalinist line. Too bad Stalin died. That one guy, holding back all of the forces of reaction. Who the fuck figured that the fate of the proletariat was in the hands one such a great man. Pfft, and Trotskyists get accused of idealism. No jobless and no homeless do not really figure into an economic argument about socialism either rather, they are more about the effects of distribution. Jeez, is your copy of Anti-Duhring missing all of Engels parts? And no co-operations? I'm tired right now but I have no idea what kinda of crazy definition of co-operations you are using. I'm fairly certain that co-ops were a fundamental aspect of soviet life.

Anyway, lets get to brass tacks, as the English say. What about wages? What about the means of production? If the means of production were truly held in common, then point to me where the capitalists fenced them off and then started the process of accumulation. How it is possible, that a communist society, one that is advanced beyond capitalism, could end up back to capitalism without so much as a peep? Khrushchev must be even greater than Napoleon! And, if you are telling me that communism happened before 1953, then how is it that the state evolved again from, and I'm just assuming here, non existence into a... state capitalist state? How did that happen?

I don't really mind you not knowing anything. Everyone has to start somewhere, but it gets really tiring when people come to me and start talking like they really know what they are talking about. Not even hardline Stalinists consider the USSR to be (using their distorted definition) communist.

[Regicollis]

Was East Germany a good example of a Communist country or was it not? If it wasn't to what time period did it go bad?

As pointed out before the DDR was not a communist country.

The DDR is not a good example. The only thing that kept the living standards up was massive hard currency loans from West Germany which was needed to import goods and technologies.

[Le Socialiste]

The GDR was a direct result of Soviet-Western concessions in the geopolitical arena. Soviet interests had less (if any) interest in furthering the revolution beyond its borders as it was in preserving its status as a victor in WWII and expanding upon its successes in Eastern/Central Europe. East Germany had little going for it in the way of workers' and peoples' liberation; its interests were less tied to the working-class than they were to the dictates of Moscow. Furthermore, one has only to look at the East German economy, as well as its political standing in terms of democratic control and self-governance/regulation on the part of the proletariat. That some comrades consider the GDR to be on the road towards communism (or at the very least, socialistic) is materially and ideologically shortsighted. The USSR was by this point firmly state capitalist in the way it functioned, and the GDR was no exception. Workers were not in control of the means of production, nor was political power decentralized along collective mass lines.

To argue at this point that the East German state was continuously threatened by outside influences antagonistic and hostile to its existence is ignoring the role and history of its primary backer, the USSR. The Soviets, early on in their history, had abandoned the basic tenets of socialism and the aspirations of the revolution in favor of policies that focused more on solidifying state power and merging the Party with the state (to the point where they were, for all intents and purposes, one and the same). These pushes toward a reestablishment of class differences and centralization laid the groundwork for a swift return to the dictatorial methods of the old government and autocrats. Through the reinstitution of one-person management, the disbanding and/or "watering down" of the workers' councils, the regimentation and militarization of labor, forced requisition of goods, and the New Economic Policy (NEP), the foundation(s) for a return to capitalism were laid. The failure of the Bolsheviks to accurately account for their position within the greater international system, the failure of the "global revolution," and the deterioration of socioeconomic/political conditions amongst the working-class and peasantry (and the subsequent collapse of the economy) provided conditions ripe for the taking. The development of the USSR along these lines must be noted if one is to understand what followed after the occupation of Central/Eastern Europe.

To get to the heart of the matter - no, East Germany was not socialist. Nor was it close to achieving a communist society. Why is this? Because its existence wasn't predicated on the liberation and self-management of the working-class; that wasn't its responsibility. It, like the rest of the Eastern Bloc, were built in the image of the Soviet Union, which was more interested in consolidating influence and establishing prestige than it was about the revolution. Socialism cannot be implemented from above. It will inevitably fail. Socialism can only be successfully achieved through the organization and self-activity of the working-class into a radical new fighting force against the symbols and interests of private capital and its institutions of exploitation. Socialism from below is the key.

[KurtFF8]

^The above is full of quite a few assumptions that are shared by a minority of the Left

[Le Socialiste]

^The above is full of quite a few assumptions that are shared by a minority of the Left

Isn't that an assumption? :rolleyes:

[Delenda Carthago]

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/e-dossier-no-15-malenkov-the-german-question-2-june-1953

[KurtFF8]

Isn't that an assumption? :rolleyes:

Yes, one that's grounded in the expressed stances of most Left groups.

[Le Socialiste]

Yes, one that's grounded in the expressed stances of most Left groups.

You cannot assert (with all seriousness) that East Germany was socialist, or transitioning towards socialism.

Unless that's not your point at all, in which case - what is your point?

[KurtFF8]

I was referring to the conception that it was "state capitalist"