Communism ruined East Germany and it still hasn't been fixed - says Spiegel

[Hygro]

mm all the juicy bits highlighted in one post.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There's something really eastern-blocish about this trend that discussion of a period has to boil down to how bad it was, and any sort of deviation from that topic is treated as prevarication and absurd.

Not even deviation in assessment of the parties in question, just deviation from the incessant, repetitive yammering.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Once you cross Vienna, you go into another universe. It's true, I saw it. If we're not bickering about how bad/good it was before 1989, we might as well turn around our current politicians and ask them "Hey.. Maybe it's your fault it's worse than when it was run by the bloody Socialists!".

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, the fact that things went down after Communism fell is pathetically hilarious at times.

 

[aelf]

Well, you know the Poles will always blame someone else. The Holocaust was entirely the Nazis and they had nothing to do with it; Poland being in North Africa was the Soviets' fault; etc, etc.

 

[Takhisis]

But this thread isn't about Poland, this is about a Central European country.

 

[aelf]

This thread is only brought back to life by a jealous neighbour, who is therefore the real topic now.

 

[Domen]

Yes, the fact that things went down after Communism fell is pathetically hilarious at times.

Food ration coupons, toilet paper coupons, empty shops, etc., etc. during the 1980s was not the sign that "things went down" ???

Good to finally learn, how awesome that Communist reality was. I never realized that before. Maybe I have too much sugar now.

PS: Things went down, availability of products went up.

 

[Takhisis]

You are truly an exponent of Poe's law, Mr. Domen. Good-bye.

 

[Domen]

East Germany is hardly even closing the gap between it and West Germany:
(in 1990 GDP per capita of DDR was 63% of West Germany's, now it's 69%)

 

[Azale]

I can't really provide an accurate insight of how reunification is going, since I don't live in Germany, but back in 2000 when I was there, there was a strong contrast between say, a small Western village and an Eastern one. It was like they were in totally different countries, mainly in terms of infraestructure, such as buildings, maintainance, etc. Only cities like Dresden and Leipzig looked modern and somewhat resembled their western counterparts. Went back in 2006 and things weren't all that different, probably a bit better.

And yes, communism is to blame. Name a single successful communist country. It doesn't exist.

All the ones that mightve existed were coup'd or worse

The Soviets did pretty damn well compared to their actual peer groups among developing countries (if you believe fairly mainstream historical/economic analysis), same with some of the Eastern Bloc countries, for a start, and everyone knows the severe limitations in their economic system (just as evident as the ones in ours but arguably better positives for a poorer country).

East Germany (like North Korea) was not as successful at developing and creating prosperity as West Germany (or South Korea) was. This is pretty simple; I don't see why it's so hard to understand. East and West Germany started off at relatively similar income levels. In a few decades, West Germany's income level was far ahead of East Germany's. Why do I even have to explain this?

Things have nuance. It's pretty disingenuous to act like all possible divergences can only be explained by one thing.

Most people seem to think their lives were better under state capitalism than German-styled ordoliberalism. That needs some explanation. So does the possible effects of the US' heavy investment into West Germany at a time when the Soviet were extracting as much as possible from the East (a self defeating, if understandable, imperial policy).

I honestly dont know the answer. Is ordoliberalism, heavily subsidized by richer nations, unhindered by military expenses in comparison to its neighbors (correct me on this if I'm wrong), and sitting atop the European economic system arguably because of this outside support (and attracting the largesse that comes from being top dog in the system), better than state capitalism? Probably. Am I being unfair to West Germany? Maybe.

Point is, it's not that simple.

 

[FriendlyFire]

West Germany is Best Germany.

So far West Germany has poured 2 Trillion into East Germany only now is starting to recover. Most think it will take another 2 Trillion to modernize East Germany to West Germany standard.
The really scarey thing is that the Soviets subsidized East Germany living standards for propaganda reason, while preventing the development of East Germany for security reasons.

 

[Domen]

the Soviets subsidized East Germany living standards for propaganda reason

Yes the Soviets cared more about East Germany than any other part of their Bloc, maybe except for Russia / the USSR itself.

 

[amadeus]

Point is, it's not that simple.

No, I'm pretty sure it is; central planning blows chunks and the whole system collapsed because they couldn't figure out how to make it so people didn't have to wait in line for 3 hours to get a roll of toilet paper.

In the 25 years since the collapse of communism, people have been pointing to the Eastern European countries and saying it proves that capitalism failed. Well, what about the 40 years (70 for the Russians) before that? The Poles, Czechs, etc. all got screwed and then when the system collapsed, capitalism should take the blame? No siree.

 

[Tahuti]

No, I'm pretty sure it is; central planning blows chunks and the whole system collapsed because they couldn't figure out how to make it so people didn't have to wait in line for 3 hours to get a roll of toilet paper.

In the 25 years since the collapse of communism, people have been pointing to the Eastern European countries and saying it proves that capitalism failed. Well, what about the 40 years (70 for the Russians) before that? The Poles, Czechs, etc. all got screwed and then when the system collapsed, capitalism should take the blame? No siree.

What happened in Eastern Europe was that Communism collapsed, Capitalism was built from its ruins. Built, not emerged. Capitalism doesn't spontaneously organise itself, markets do - and there is a subtle difference.

Capitalism does require government intervention in the form of fractional reserve banking. The whole point of capital accumulation is lost without an intrinsic need to gain profits. If you take a loan, you have to accumulate capital. A negative net worth is unsustainable in the long run, so you have to accumulate capital to recover from it. From then, people realise you can accumulate capital even when it's not necessary to get by. That's capitalism essentially.

 

[Domen]

In the 25 years since the collapse of communism, people have been pointing to the Eastern European countries and saying it proves that capitalism failed

"Capitalism" failed only in these countries, where it has not really been implemented, and where post-Communists continued to be in power.

For example Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.

 

[Tahuti]

"Capitalism" failed only in these countries, where it has not really been implemented, and where post-Communists continued to be in power.

For example Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.

You are confusing markets with Capitalism. Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine do not have free markets, that is, it is hard to start a business in those countries compared to say Sweden or USA, which are free markets. However, none are less Capitalist than the US is.

Capitalism = Capital accumulation
Free markets = Easy access to economic traffic

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, I'm pretty sure it is; central planning blows chunks and the whole system collapsed because they couldn't figure out how to make it so people didn't have to wait in line for 3 hours to get a roll of toilet paper.

In the 25 years since the collapse of communism, people have been pointing to the Eastern European countries and saying it proves that capitalism failed. Well, what about the 40 years (70 for the Russians) before that? The Poles, Czechs, etc. all got screwed and then when the system collapsed, capitalism should take the blame? No siree.

So, what are we going to blame Greece on?

A handful of data points doesn't prove anything, much less that the demise of the Soviet Union has anything at all to do with communism.

You can't even claim that socialism "collapsed" because it was really just a single instance of a quasi-socialist regime, along with its satellites, which failed. That they clearly started with baggage from centuries of brutal repression by dictators who were anything but socialists. That it was really more a failure of authoritarianism than anything else, and which remains their biggest problem.

 

[amadeus]

"Capitalism" failed only in these countries, where it has not really been implemented, and where post-Communists continued to be in power.

For example Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.

I'm not saying it failed. But you're right that the ex-commies mostly ruined what could have been a good thing.

So, what are we going to blame Greece on?

Start with the Greek government, then the Greek public for going along with it, and then the foreign banks who lent them money.

A handful of data points doesn't prove anything, much less that the demise of the Soviet Union has anything at all to do with communism.

You can't even claim that socialism "collapsed" because it was really just a single instance of a quasi-socialist regime, along with its satellites, which failed. That they clearly started with baggage from centuries of brutal repression by dictators who were anything but socialists. That it was really more a failure of authoritarianism than anything else, and which remains their biggest problem.

I can most certainly say it collapsed; almost every Marxist-Leninist regime fell along with it. Those that didn't suffered 20 additional years of worsened poverty (Cuba, North Korea)

There have been plenty of authoritarian regimes that didn't lead to widespread additional misery: Spain, Portugal, Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia... some of those countries started poorer than Russia. What's the explanation for that?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Start with the Greek government, then the Greek public for going along with it, and then the foreign banks who lent them money.

What would you be saying if you thought they were "communist"?

I can most certainly say it collapsed; almost every Marxist-Leninist regime fell along with it. Those that didn't suffered 20 additional years of worsened poverty (Cuba, North Korea)

You can certainly say it. But it hardly makes it true.

The point is that we have only seen a few examples of so-called socialist governments, and all of them have suffered from the very same problem. They were hopelessly authoritarian which has nothing at all to do with socialism or communism.

Again, a handful of data points prove nothing. That is particularly true when they suffer from the same inherent problems.

There have been plenty of authoritarian regimes that didn't lead to widespread additional misery: Spain, Portugal, Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia... some of those countries started poorer than Russia. What's the explanation for that?

Exploiting others has always been a quite easy way for a handful of individuals to get rich at the expense of the multitudes. They should be so proud of their heritage of exploitation due to sheer greed. In that sense, they had the very same roots as Russia did.