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.
*
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