The Berlin Wall

[Forty Two]

Is anyone here from Germany and old enough to remember the Berlin Wall?

I read an interesting article a while about about a GDR official named Gunter Schabowski who ended a nondescript conference with an offhand announcement that the GDR was going to lift restrictions on crossing through the Berlin Wall. When pressed by the media as to when this would occur, he confusedly referred to it being immediate and without delay.

His error in delivery of a message that was not an official announcement immediately went out on the media wire (pre-Internet) and became all the rage in the news. The people in the GDR found out about it, and immediately started crowding the Wall. Crowds of people in numbers that the Wall guards (who were not given any orders to let anybody through or how this was to be handled) were overwhelmed by the numbers.

It occurred to me, given our discussions about Communism vs. Capitalism, and how some here portray Capitalism as evil and oppressive, and Communism is advanced as at least having the intention to do do good, it occurred to me that it would be odd for a benevolent communist country to have to wall its people in in the first place. The western line was always that the Soviets were the ones that needed to bring down the "iron curtain" across Europe, whereas the west would have no such walls.

In the economic sense, some here have suggested that capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly and oppression, only a few rich, and a great many poor. There is a reticence, it seems, to believe the stories of empty shelves and 10 year waits for cars, and the like in soviet countries, and stories like the Boris Yeltsin amazement over the choice and quantities in common American supermarkets are sort of ignored or considered not really true.

When I think about the crowds of East Germans, though, who thought that they had the opportunity to leave their homeland, and en masse crowding up to the wall, demanding to be let through, and the guards being overwhelmed by the numbers -- such that the low level GDR official is credited with "hastening" the fall of the Berlin Wall -- I think of what they must have been fleeing. Were they fleeing a fair economy, full of equality, with everyone treated fairly, getting what they need, and all that, without all the oppression and unfairness of a capitalist society?

Even though in the 1950s the GDR became one of the strongest economies in the Soviet Bloc, people still fled to a better life in the Federal Republic, or other western countries. That precipitated the rise of the Berlin Wall in 1961, to keep the people in -- not to prevent illegal immigrants from entering, but to prevent the citizenry from leaving....

I wonder why there is such an attraction among some circles for the concept of communism. Do people think it will be different somehow? Do they not believe the history?

Was the GDR not a true communist economy?

[Hermit]

Was the GDR not a true communist economy?

No.

You have no clue about what communism is supposed to be and how it is supposed to come about. Maybe you should read up a bit on Marx. Then you might discover why there has never been a communist economy to date.

[Scot Dutchy]

The DDR was just a smaller version of the Soviet Union where once again the party had the power with a massive secret service.

[Forty Two]

Was the GDR not a true communist economy?

No.

You have no clue about what communism is supposed to be and how it is supposed to come about. Maybe you should read up a bit on Marx. Then you might discover why there has never been a communist economy to date.

I have read most of Marx, unlike some here.

So, you're advancing the notion that there has never been a communist economy.

I would love for you to note, and link to if possible, where you think Marx describes "what communism is supposed to be" -- the bits you think are supportive of the notion that it would be a good thing if it works as it is supposed to, and the bit that you think describes with some degree of specificity how it works and how it comes about.

[Forty Two]

Hermit, if you can read the Communist Manifesto, the Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Civil War in France, and come away with an approving view of what Marx's Communism would bring about (first half, dictatorship of the proletariat), then I would love for you to explain your view on that.

After the first stage of dictatorship of the proletariant, Marx contemplated a gradual transition to full communism. But, he never says how that's going to happen, and he contemplates that there is at this point coercive means by which a government attempts to squash the "old enemies" and the remaining features of capitalism.

Once that is done, then full communism means the that the State has gone away, and there is no need for laws or administrations, etc. Marx claims that the people will be aware of social norms and adhere to them, right? Or, no, he contemplated something else?

I know you want to simply declare that if I don't think Communism is wine and roses that I must not have read Marx - I assure, while I may be a "retard" as I've been called, I have read the core of Marx's writings multiple times.

[Rum]

Marx was simply wrong. He did a great job at teasing out and describing the way capitalism works and the relations between labour and the owners of capital - as it was then. He had some luck in anticipating the lengths to which capital would go to keep hold of their goodies too.

But he based his predictions on the future development of socialism and ultimately communism on pretty much no evidence at all - just optimism as far as I can see. he saw it as 'inevitable' as he thought he had discovered laws about how such things work..not really the case.

No socialist regime ever stated that they ran communist economies. They ran 'command' economies in the vain hope that one day after the world wide revolution happened there was a chance of transformation to that condition.

Of course by the time vested interests and the hierarchy of the various Politburos were in place there was little chance they were going to give up their goodies either.

There's no evidence, sadly, that communism can work as Marx saw it in the real world. There is however evidence that liberal democracies which have learned a few lessons from Marxist thinking (however obliquely) can help make a decent life for their citizens.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Northern European Socialist Countries did create the socialist safety net which is still in place today although it is has been reduced. It is still effective. Britain is not one of those countries. The tories have removed many safeguards and after Brexit it will head the American way. Disappearing into the mire of despair.

[Forty Two]

Nice post, Rum.

I have a hard time figuring out how Marx saw communism working in the real world. I've read through his stuff, and summaries of his stuff, to find out just how it would "work." How would day to day life go be different than it is now? How would disputes be resolved (or does Marx's view that people would adhere to social norms literally mean that people would not get into disputes)? What is your understanding of the Marxist view of what the practical life of full communism would be like, day to day - what are the mechanics of it?

My suspicion has always been that Marx wrote his stuff in a time when the way of life of much of the world was so bad that there would be nowhere to go but up. I mean, how could it get worse for the serfs and peasants? What Marx "promised" really was not that the peasants would live well - what he figured was that if the peasants didn't see the dickhead middle class and aristocrats living high on the hog, everyone would be agreeable to their poor lot in life. I don't think he figured there was a way to make most people's lives luxurious or even comfortable. What he figured was that if people didn't see a class of people doing better, then they wouldn't be dissatisfied with their lives.

Hear me out. He never said the poor would be like the middle class or the bourgeoisie, did he? No. He never said they'd own houses and farms and have extra stuff, and time on their hands to do things, and the like. He doesn't talk about entertainment and enjoyment of life. He talks about worker armies, and redistribution of the population from cities so that their all spread evenly across the land, and they'll all be tenants of the common landlord, the State, and everyone will know that the harder they work it'll be better for everyone including themselves because somehow they will see that their own work is actually working for themselves and the community and the satisfaction of working for the community will be enough.

What, however, is absent from Marx's promised future? Prosperity. Comfort.

What he does promise is that you who have nothing now, at least you won't starve, like you're doing now.

Then the communists took over, and trying to push through the dictatorship of the proletariat - actually trying to be that coercive force that Marx wrote about - Lenin and Stalin actually followed the playbook. The purges were justified in the mind of communist leaders because they were getting rid of first, the aristocracy (bullets to the head), then the bourgeousie and the intelligentsia (more bullets, lots of seizures and raids and confiscations, and gulags), and the petit bourgeousie and peasants (starved), all to leave the proletariat to usher in the new day of communism.

Ultimately, the whole world would have to come over to communism, because it's hard to rationally figure a "full communism" situation when 100 countries out there are not involved, and are interfering with the communist countries' drive to full communism by virtue of their existence. So, the ultimate goal would be one world communism.

[Forty Two]

The Northern European Socialist Countries did create the socialist safety net which is still in place today although it is has been reduced. It is still effective. Britain is not one of those countries. The tories have removed many safeguards and after Brexit it will head the American way. Disappearing into the mire of despair.

So, they are socialist? Which ones?

Sometimes folks argue that they aren't socialist - most western European countries, in my view, are not socialist.

It's funny that when I bring up East Germany, that's not a true communist or socialist countries. But, "northern European" (I assume you mean the Nordic countries?) are true socialism in action, what with their vibrant and thriving private industry, private property ownership, and means of production in the hands of private persons acting pursuant to the profit motive....

[Rum]

Nice post, Rum.

I have a hard time figuring out how Marx saw communism working in the real world. I've read through his stuff, and summaries of his stuff, to find out just how it would "work." How would day to day life go be different than it is now? How would disputes be resolved (or does Marx's view that people would adhere to social norms literally mean that people would not get into disputes)? What is your understanding of the Marxist view of what the practical life of full communism would be like, day to day - what are the mechanics of it?

My suspicion has always been that Marx wrote his stuff in a time when the way of life of much of the world was so bad that there would be nowhere to go but up. I mean, how could it get worse for the serfs and peasants? What Marx "promised" really was not that the peasants would live well - what he figured was that if the peasants didn't see the dickhead middle class and aristocrats living high on the hog, everyone would be agreeable to their poor lot in life. I don't think he figured there was a way to make most people's lives luxurious or even comfortable. What he figured was that if people didn't see a class of people doing better, then they wouldn't be dissatisfied with their lives.

Hear me out. He never said the poor would be like the middle class or the bourgeoisie, did he? No. He never said they'd own houses and farms and have extra stuff, and time on their hands to do things, and the like. He doesn't talk about entertainment and enjoyment of life. He talks about worker armies, and redistribution of the population from cities so that their all spread evenly across the land, and they'll all be tenants of the common landlord, the State, and everyone will know that the harder they work it'll be better for everyone including themselves because somehow they will see that their own work is actually working for themselves and the community and the satisfaction of working for the community will be enough.

What, however, is absent from Marx's promised future? Prosperity. Comfort.

What he does promise is that you who have nothing now, at least you won't starve, like you're doing now.

Then the communists took over, and trying to push through the dictatorship of the proletariat - actually trying to be that coercive force that Marx wrote about - Lenin and Stalin actually followed the playbook. The purges were justified in the mind of communist leaders because they were getting rid of first, the aristocracy (bullets to the head), then the bourgeousie and the intelligentsia (more bullets, lots of seizures and raids and confiscations, and gulags), and the petit bourgeousie and peasants (starved), all to leave the proletariat to usher in the new day of communism.

Ultimately, the whole world would have to come over to communism, because it's hard to rationally figure a "full communism" situation when 100 countries out there are not involved, and are interfering with the communist countries' drive to full communism by virtue of their existence. So, the ultimate goal would be one world communism.

It isn't surprising that you have struggled to find examples of how Marx thought the world would look under true communism - there aren't any. Some people argue that he was working on such things when he died, but I don't believe that. He was deliberately or perhaps unavoidably vague about it and didn't describe any sort of vision. After worldwide revolution and when the dictatorship of the proletariat was established the state would 'wither away' - to quote him. Quite what it would be replaced with is another matter - and one he didn't care to speculate upon it seems. He did however talk about the true potential of humanity being unleashed when people worked for the common good, if they chose to, where labour was seen as a good thing and not toil and where the profit (or wage) motivation was replaced by the notion of the common good.

The key in his thinking - and to understanding him in my view - is that he wrote about 'conditions' and 'relations' for the most part and not about concrete reality.

[JimC]

After re-unification, although there were some clear benefits for East Germans in terms of more freedom, I remember reading that they had real poverty issues, greatly increased by the end of the free healthcare that they had become accustomed to...

[Hermit]

Was the GDR not a true communist economy?

No.

You have no clue about what communism is supposed to be and how it is supposed to come about. Maybe you should read up a bit on Marx. Then you might discover why there has never been a communist economy to date.

I have read most of Marx, unlike some here.

Guaranteed you have not read 5% of it. The Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe is a work in progress. So far 65 double volumes have been published.



When completed, the whole project is expected to require 114. Das Kapital alone takes up over 2000 pages in three volumes.

So, you're advancing the notion that there has never been a communist economy.

Correct. Socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, was supposed to be a transitional point between capitalism and communism. Marx did state often enough that communism will have been reached with the withering away of the state. Nowhere have socialist revolutions gone beyond the embodiment of that dictatorship - the one party state. Having read most of Marx, you undoubtedly remember again. I won't need to provide a link.

I would love for you to note, and link to if possible, where you think Marx describes "what communism is supposed to be" -- the bits you think are supportive of the notion that it would be a good thing if it works as it is supposed to, and the bit that you think describes with some degree of specificity how it works and how it comes about.

Would you really? That's awfully nice of you, but I must beg off. You see, I regard communism, particularly the Marxist variety, as a preposterous pipe dream. It cannot possibly work as it is supposed to, so I do not see a point in wasting time describing how it might work if it could work. May as well try to describe how a square circle could be constructed and what it might be good for if we somehow succeeded.

Hermit, if you can read the Communist Manifesto, the Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Civil War in France, and come away with an approving view of what Marx's Communism would bring about (first half, dictatorship of the proletariat), then I would love for you to explain your view on that.

You seem to presume that criticising laissez faire capitalism means I must prefer Marxism. What gives you the impression? How many more times must I post that my preference is a mixed economy and all it entails? How many more times need I reiterate that I'd rather live in a capitalist country than China or North Korea?

[DRSB]

I was in Berlin, GDR, in 1982. I remember the wall and also the fact, that we were warned about using the metro which continues to the west part as originally constructed. Of course it would not have been possible to cross the border as there were border controls entering the metro at some point.
GDR was not a mini-USSR and was extensively funded by the whole block to prevent negative comparisons to FRG.

[rainbow]

Was the GDR not a true communist economy?

No.

You have no clue about what communism is supposed to be and how it is supposed to come about. Maybe you should read up a bit on Marx. Then you might discover why there has never been a communist economy to date.

I have read most of Marx, unlike some here.

Obviously then you read Marx, but failed to understand what you were reading.

Unfortunately this isn't the place for you to be coached on the basics. Perhaps there is a community college near you where they will give you a 'lite' course on Marxian philosophy?

[rainbow]

I was in Berlin, GDR, in 1982. I remember the wall and also the fact, that we were warned about using the metro which continues to the west part as originally constructed. Of course it would not have been possible to cross the border as there were border controls entering the metro at some point.
GDR was not a mini-USSR and was extensively funded by the whole block to prevent negative comparisons to FRG.

I was there in 1988. Our (West) German host told us there was no chance of re-unification.
A year later it was down.