East Berlin uprising: june 1953.

[Lamanov]

What happened there?

I've read somewhere in short that it was a workers' uprising.

[dannie]

After stalins death, the SED realised they needed to loosen their repression on opponents, but failed to lower production quota and norms for regular workers.
This resulted in a strike by builders on the 16th of june, followed by an almost general protest troughout the DDR.
The demands changed from lower work quota to resignation of the East-german government. It's no suprise these protest where repressed with the aid of soviet troops given the authoritan nature of the DDR.

[combat]

It was an aborted political revolution in the deformed workers' state of eastern germany(DDR)...the first one of a series of attempts by the proletariat to overthrow the bureaucrats and push for a real socialist agenda in eastern europe.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:12 pm
...in the deformed workers' state...

Now I wish I didn't ask. :rolleyes:

[LoneRed]

too late for that, you've unleashed the madness

[The Grey Blur]

:wacko:

You disagree with the terms in which he described the USSR or you disagree with the analysis? Try and make it a bit clearer.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 27, 2006 11:59 pm
:wacko:

You disagree with the terms in which he described the USSR or you disagree with the analysis? Try and make it a bit clearer.
Calling East Berlin a deformed workers state is just stupid, how could it be, there was no revolution, the workers never took power!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So then you have to answer the question, which class ruled in the DDR? And if you say the bourgeoisie, you have to explain why the imperialists were so hostile to it. You also have to explain why the bourgoisie acted in the interests of the workers so often (much more than they do in capitalist states). You have to explain why they offered subsidized food and other goods, why they offered universal education and healthcare, etc.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 28, 2006 02:42 am
So then you have to answer the question, which class ruled in the DDR? And if you say the bourgeoisie, you have to explain why the imperialists were so hostile to it. You also have to explain why the bourgoisie acted in the interests of the workers so often (much more than they do in capitalist states). You have to explain why they offered subsidized food and other goods, why they offered universal education and healthcare, etc.
Bureaucrats were in charge (like managers running a company). The capitalists were hostile to it because they don't care who takes their property, even if it is other bourgeoisie. They offered subsidized food and other goods, ect to encourage productivity.

The people running the state were a privliged class, they were able to leach off the work of the workers and get more then the average worker.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Bureaucrats" don't make up a distinct class. So again, what class did they belong to?

Why would a capitalist ruling class in the DDR offer subsidized food and other goods "to encourage productivity," while other capitalists didn't and don't?

Even if the members of the governing body of the state were privileged that doesn't mean they belonged to the bourgeoisie.

You haven't addressed my questions in a scientific and materialist way.

[Psy]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+October 28, 2006 04:23 am--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ October 28, 2006 04:23 am)"Bureaucrats" don't make up a distinct class. So again, what class did they belong to?
[/b]
They collectivly owned the means of production and were the primary beneficiary of the wealth from the workers.


Originally posted by Compañ[email protected]

Why would a capitalist ruling class in the DDR offer subsidized food and other goods "to encourage productivity," while other capitalists didn't and don't?

If a capitalist gives workers nice break rooms, free lunches,ect, it doesn't mean the capitalist is no longer exploiting the labor of the workers it just means they are exploiting workers less.


CompañeroDeLibertad

Even if the members of the governing body of the state were privileged that doesn't mean they belonged to the bourgeoisie.

If you look at those who benifited from the counter-revolution it was the bureaucrats, the new owners of production came from their ranks.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They collectivly owned the means of production and were the primary beneficiary of the wealth from the workers.

Okay, they controlled the means of production, you've already said that. The question you still haven't answered is which class did they belong to?


If a capitalist gives workers nice break rooms, free lunches,ect, it doesn't mean the capitalist is no longer exploiting the labor of the workers it just means they are exploiting workers less.

You didn't answer the question. Why were these capitalists so nice? Why did they act in the interests of workers so often (in comparison to the capitalists in the imperialists states for example).


If you look at those who benifited from the counter-revolution it was the bureaucrats, the new owners of production came from their ranks.

But wait.. according to you, they were already in power.. so how did they benefit from being taken out of power? And why was it a "counter-revolution" if the government being overthrown wasn't a revolutionary government (according to you) to begin with?

[black magick hustla]

Okay, they controlled the means of production, you've already said that. The question you still haven't answered is which class did they belong to?

A newly formed bourgeoisie.



You didn't answer the question. Why were these capitalists so nice? Why did they act in the interests of workers so often (in comparison to the capitalists in the imperialists states for example).

Perhaps because--due to the circumstances of how the ussr was formed, "socialist" bureaucrats were actually "benevolent"?

There was once a mexican president called Lazaro Cardenas--he backed up cooperatives, he socialized oil, and he basically was the "workingman's friend".

However, regardless of how "nice he was", his government was still bourgeois, because simply, a minority owned the means of production and was privilieged because it leeched from the work of the proletariat.

It doesnt matters if he was more benevolent. He was an active militant of the mexican revolution, and thus he was molded by circumstances that actually made him benevolent.

It doesn't matters if they were nicer or not. There are "benevolent bourgeosie" that spend considerable amounts of their capital in charity, etc. I am pretty sure some of them do not do it because they have some sort of agenda, simply they "feel" good about it.

That doesnt removes their "bourgeoisness" though.

[Leo]

So then you have to answer the question, which class ruled in the DDR? And if you say the bourgeoisie, you have to explain why the imperialists were so hostile to it.

This is a baseless analysis. Obviously, every national bourgeoise is not friendly with its counterparts in other countries. Ever heard of something called "imperialist war"?


"Bureaucrats" don't make up a distinct class.

When they completely controll the means of production, command labour and completely hold political power, they do.

[Psy]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+October 28, 2006 04:53 am--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ October 28, 2006 04:53 am)Okay, they controlled the means of production, you've already said that. The question you still haven't answered is which class did they belong to?

You didn't answer the question. Why were these capitalists so nice? Why did they act in the interests of workers so often (in comparison to the capitalists in the imperialists states for example).
[/b]
see Marmot post


Originally posted by Compañ[email protected]

But wait.. according to you, they were already in power.. so how did they benefit from being taken out of power?

Instead of collectivly owning the means of production they indivdually owned the means of production.


CompañeroDeLibertad

And why was it a "counter-revolution" if the government being overthrown wasn't a revolutionary government (according to you) to begin with?

For Russia it it ment what gains workers had left from 1917 being taken away.

Anyway if it was a workers state then (even a degenerated/deformed one) then why throughout the soviet block was there workers uprisings? Why did Russia crush these workers uprisings?

[combat]

a deformed workers's state, that is a workers' state deformed at birth without a workers' revolution. Read the articles of the IVth international on the matter.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 03:05 pm
a deformed workers's state, that is a workers' state deformed at birth without a workers' revolution. Read the articles of the IVth international on the matter.
Again why throughout the soviet block was there workers uprisings? Why did Russia crush these workers uprisings?

[combat]

There was even an uprising in Russia in 1961. The NKVD troops did shot hundreds of people.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 04:20 pm
There was even an uprising in Russia in 1961. The NKVD troops did shot hundreds of people.
Right but if the soviet block was a deformed workers state, why did the state attack workers revolution? Why did the so called worker state overthrow worker revolutions?