******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
<marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>One would think socialism refers to a society in which the workers, the masses, are in control. They were not in control in East Germany. Yet Proyect puts forward the old GDR (East Germany) as an example of "genuine socialism", writing that it was "a society based on socialist principles, even if distorted", and that it showed "how socialism provided major benefits to East Germans (I should add genuine socialism as opposed to the ersatz product being peddled today by some on the left.)" (The parenthetical comment is Proyect's.) East Germany saw the uprising of 1953. It sought to stabilize its existence by draconic restrictions on foreign travel, including the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. The people were spied on by the Stasi. The elections of 1989 signified the coming end of the regime in 1990. How can it be said that this was a society run by the workers? The people did not determine the structure of the this society, but they did usher in its dissolution. But then, is anyone really saying that it was a society run by the workers? Proyect refers to the social programs in East Germany and the expropriation of the past capitalists. But he does not refer to how it was governed, for the GDR was indeed governed by a new elite, albeit this was an elite in turn subject to the Soviet Union. Proyect says that Grossman is "brutally honest about what happened in East Germany." I haven't read Grossman's book, so I can't judge that, but I don't think Proyect's review is "brutally honest". He evades unpleasant facts, referring to them only indirectly. The review doesn't say directly that the GDR didn't have popular support. It says the GDR couldn't "withstand the onslaught of West Germany that was facilitated by Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost." Onslaught - wow that sounds like the Wehrmacht was in motion. But it's a reference to the fact that the people of the GDR dissolved it. And Proyect just can't get himself to say that directly. He talks of Grossman's "sense of outrage over the way in which East Germany was 'liberated'..." But does Grossman directly talk about the GDR losing popular support? Proyect doesn't say. If one were "brutally honest", one would take it more seriously that the people were upset with the regime. And one would say directly whether one believed that a regime should be able to maintain itself in power indefinitely, even if had to rule against the will of the majority of the people. We are seeing one regime after another which believes it has the right to rule even though it has lost support, and yet gets support from a certain section of the left for this. Should this depend simply on how many social programs are enacted and how many nationalizations have taken place? And should we be the ones to decide, or should the local population have that right? Proyect gives as an example of brutal honesty the analysis that the GDR's economic problems, insofar as they were caused by outside pressure, was due to the fact that "Essentially, socialist East Germany lacked the two tools that capitalist production relied on: the carrot and the stick. ... Generally, both the factory and the retail worker never felt the same kind of lash that kept their counterparts in the West in line. This gave rise to a certain haughtiness in the service-oriented fields where, for example, tips were never expected in East German restaurants." The GDR's economy wasn't run by the workers. The major decisions on its structure were decided by the East German elite and the Soviet Union, and factory management was run according to the Soviet model. The elite themselves had bonuses and carrots. But "brutal honesty" is supposedly to blame the problems of the economy on the workers. There are questions of fact to deal with in assessing what happened in the GDR. But there are also questions of principle. Should we consider that genuine socialism must be the act of the masses or of a hopefully benevolent elite? The GDR was not an example of the working class running society. In my view, to use it as an example of "the universal appeal of socialism" is to substitute the ideology of benevolent despotism for socialism. It's worth recalling a poem of Brecht's about the 1953 uprising that Proyect or someone else posted earlier. Is this just a poem against some faceless bureaucrat or does it tell a deeper truth about what was happening? The Solution - Poem by Bertolt Brecht After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another? <> On 19 Apr 2019 at 14:21, Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist wrote: > > A Socialist Defector > by louisproyect > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
