[Political Interest]

The DDR was ostensibly a socialist country based on Marxism-Leninism. However it was also very nationalistic. Most of the propaganda looked like something from a fascist state.

They had minimal immigration.

How did communists produce such a country?

[The Immortal Goon]

It had no fascist movement to create such a state, so it would not be considered fascist.

However, there was no specific communist movement from the ground either. So this, being a relatively recent thing to look at, tends to break down one of four ways:

Generally, it would be considered legitimately socialist (Stalinist); a Deformed Worker's State (some Trotskyists); Bureaucratic collectivist (other Trotskyists); or state capitalism (ultra leftists).

Most of these are problematic in some way. But it's not fascist.

It would have used nationalist symbols for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being as a means of establishing itself as the real Germany while the West was occupied.

[Decky]

You really are determined to build up this fantasy that real existing socialism was not actually socialist aren't you PI?

[Political Interest]

Well then how do we explain East Germany's strict immigration laws?

Guest workers in the DDR were only allowed to stay for a period of up to three years.

[The Immortal Goon]

Do you think that's a criteria for fascism or something?

I don't see the connection.

[Political Interest]

Do you think that's a criteria for fascism or something?

I don't see the connection.

Not necessarily.

But when I see communists advocating for completely open borders that leads to massive demographic shifts I always like to think of East Germany that was the complete opposite.

[The Immortal Goon]

I don't know where you've seen people advocate for mass open borders within the context of a liberal economic system.

I'm probably the closest thing to say such a thing, and that's because it would collapse the capitalist order and throw everything into chaos. Advocating it would be hopeless, but also underlines contradictions in capitalism and the lies behind capitalist hegemony. That doesn't mean that I think it's some viable solution in a capitalist framework that someone is going to propose.

As I've said a few times, Exclusion Acts mean international production goes international and exploits the cheapest labour possible. That's just how capitalism works. That's how it's specifically designed to work.

[ThirdTerm]

East Germany was a Soviet puppet state, from where over 3.5 million East Germans emigrated to West Germany before 1961. The Berlin Wall was erected to stop the mass emigration and all travel to the West was effectively banned. Only 5,000 managed to cross the Berlin Wall between 1961 and 1989 and it looked like a brutal fascist state, where defectors were routinely shot while attempting to cross the Berlin Wall. Close to 20% of the population had already left the country before the Berlin Wall and the shoot-to-kill order was necessary to keep East Germans to stay where they were.

[Atlantis]

The DDR was ostensibly a socialist country based on Marxism-Leninism. However it was also very nationalistic. Most of the propaganda looked like something from a fascist state.

They had minimal immigration.

How did communists produce such a country?

The British are currently obsessed with immigration because they have talked themselves into a frenzy. The GDR (DDR) has nothing to do with that. The GDR had no more and no less immigration than other communist dictatorships. In a dictatorship, people are not free to even move from one city to another. How on earth do you think that such a dictatorship would allow uncontrolled immigration across national borders?

All immigration in the GDR was strictly state controlled, just like every other aspect of life. Workers and students from other socialist countries were invited to study or work in the GDR. The biggest contingent of workers came from Vietnam.

In the 1960s, at the time the FRG (West Germany) started to invite Turks, Italians, etc. to come and work as guest workers in West Germany, the GDR made contracts with Vietnam, Poland, Cuba, Mozambique, Angola, etc. to send workers to East Germany, albeit on a more modest scale.

What does any of this prove? Easy: you can control immigration like all else in a dictatorship!

However, there was no specific communist movement from the ground either.

What does that even mean? Germany had a strong communist movement prior to the war. Most German communists flocked to East Germany after the war as the future communist paradise. Thus, East Germany had a stronger communist basis than most socialist countries. This basis was able to indoctrinate the population with relentless Marxist propaganda for decades. By 1989, the East German communist party (SED) had a membership of 2.3 million, in a population of not much more than 16 million.

[Potemkin]

What does that even mean? Germany had a strong communist movement prior to the war. Most German communists flocked to East Germany after the war as the future communist paradise. Thus, East Germany had a stronger communist basis than most socialist countries. This basis was able to indoctrinate the population with relentless Marxist propaganda for decades. By 1989, the East German communist party (SED) had a membership of 2.3 million, in a population of not much more than 16 million.

Indeed. Communism was stronger in Germany than in almost any other European nation, despite Hitler's repression of it. I think what TIG meant was that Communism did not come to power in East Germany by a popular uprising, but was in effect imposed from without by the Soviet Army. This imposition was made easier by the existence of large numbers of native German Communists, socialists and 'fellow-travellers', but it wasn't exactly what Marx had in mind when he wrote about the future political victory of the proletariat.

[Atlantis]

Indeed. Communism was stronger in Germany than in almost any other European nation, despite Hitler's repression of it. I think what TIG meant was that Communism did not come to power in East Germany by a popular uprising, but was in effect imposed from without by the Soviet Army. This imposition was made easier by the existence of large numbers of native German Communists, socialists and 'fellow-travellers', but it wasn't exactly what Marx had in mind when he wrote about the future political victory of the proletariat.

That still doesn't make the GDR a special case. The political situation in every country is influenced by outside forces. Thus, if the communists succeed in one country (GDR) and not in another country (Greece) that is purely due to the accident of history and the relative positions of opposing armies in the geopolitical theater.

The outcome of most revolutions (rebellions, regime-changes, etc.) is influenced to a large extend by outside actors, like in Syria today.

[Potemkin]

That still doesn't make the GDR a special case. The political situation in every country is influenced by outside forces. Thus, if the communists succeed in one country (GDR) and not in another country (Greece) that is purely due to the accident of history and the relative positions of opposing armies in the geopolitical theater.

The outcome of most revolutions (rebellions, regime-changes, etc.) is influenced to a large extend by outside actors, like in Syria today.

I agree, and this ultimately is why the proletarian revolution must be a global revolution, if it is to be successful in the long term. Marx was very clear on this point. But any global revolution is made up of lots of local revolutions; if everybody waits for the global uprising to begin before doing anything, then nothing will be achieved. Every big victory is made up of lots of little victories. Having said that, however, the Communist regime in the GDR was the result of outside forces far more than it was the result of an indigenous uprising. As the saying has it, true power is taken rather than given. The GDR regime was a client state of the Soviet Union and depended for its existence on the continuing support of the Soviet government. When Gorbachev cut the Eastern European satellite states loose in the late 1980s, he doomed them.

[Atlantis]

the Communist regime in the GDR was the result of outside forces far more than it was the result of an indigenous uprising

Again, that doesn't really mean anything. What kind of indigenous uprising do you expect in an occupied country that's been completely shattered by the war and the subsequent capitulation? The GDR was a Soviet client state just like the FRG is a US client state, no more no less. The Soviet victory allowed German communists to rule the GDR just like the US allowed the free marketeers to rule the FRG. In that the GDR may have even been more authentic than the FRG because, while communism had been part of German intellectual life since the 19th century, the kind of social market economy favored by the Germans always differed from pure Anglo free marketeering.

When Gorbachev cut the Eastern European satellite states loose in the late 1980s, he doomed them.

Not just in the Eastern European satellites, communism was doomed in Russia too because the real socialism just didn't work. That is hardly Gorbachev's fault. If something cannot work, you have to change it, not try to preserve it. I know that's tough for an old Marxist, but it's better to face it sooner rather than later.

[The Immortal Goon]

Potemkin is entirely correct.

The issue is that there was not, in the end, a global communist revolution as the vast majority of the world remained capitalist. The conquest of Germany, rather than the revolution in Germany, exasperated the problems.

To say that "real socialism didn't work," is to ignore two things:

In the first, most but not all Marxists, would contend that " real socialism," cannot exist in any form except on as a global system because capitalism exists on a global scale and most be dialectically replaced.

Second, the argument is a fallacy in that history doesn't work that way. Cromwell became Lord Protector of Britain and failed to make a proper capitalist republic, yet I don't hear capitalists in a republic screaming that the creation of a capitalist republic is impossible because Cromwell failed.

[Political Interest]

I don't know where you've seen people advocate for mass open borders within the context of a liberal economic system.

I'm probably the closest thing to say such a thing, and that's because it would collapse the capitalist order and throw everything into chaos. Advocating it would be hopeless, but also underlines contradictions in capitalism and the lies behind capitalist hegemony. That doesn't mean that I think it's some viable solution in a capitalist framework that someone is going to propose.

As I've said a few times, Exclusion Acts mean international production goes international and exploits the cheapest labour possible. That's just how capitalism works. That's how it's specifically designed to work.

Nearly every communist party in places like France, Australia, the UK or New Zealand advocates for open borders.

The leader of the French communist party caused a sensation when he once called for a halt of all immigration into France. Apparently this was completely incomprehensible to most French communists.

Marxists have this naive belief that if you bring in millions of immigrants it will strenghten working class unity and defeat racism. It actually does the opposite because it increases ethnic tensions and therefore makes people identify on the basis of their ethno-religious group rather than their class.

Marxism is quickly devolving into an exclusively Third Worldist ideology. Most Marxists today are basically advocates for the interests of the global south and have absolutely no interest in creating socialism in their own countries. Many also seem to want mass immigration into Europe as a way of bringing in "more revolutionary" workers because their native proletariat are supposedly part of the labour aristocracy.

By the way, there is no need for Exclusion Acts. Exclusion Acts are basically racist controls to stop immigrants from certain backgrounds entering the country. But the issue is not race. Criticising the mass population replacement taking place in Europe is not born out of contempt for certain types of people, in spite of what most communists think. You and I cannot get on a plane to Beijing and present ourselves to Chinese immigration without visas. We would immediatley be deported. Similarly if you are a foreigner in China you are bound by your visa regulations. If the government do not renew your visa you will be deported. It is also extremely difficult to acquire Chinese citizenship.

The British are currently obsessed with immigration because they have talked themselves into a frenzy. The GDR (DDR) has nothing to do with that. The GDR had no more and no less immigration than other communist dictatorships. In a dictatorship, people are not free to even move from one city to another. How on earth do you think that such a dictatorship would allow uncontrolled immigration across national borders?

All immigration in the GDR was strictly state controlled, just like every other aspect of life. Workers and students from other socialist countries were invited to study or work in the GDR. The biggest contingent of workers came from Vietnam.

In the 1960s, at the time the FRG (West Germany) started to invite Turks, Italians, etc. to come and work as guest workers in West Germany, the GDR made contracts with Vietnam, Poland, Cuba, Mozambique, Angola, etc. to send workers to East Germany, albeit on a more modest scale.

What does any of this prove? Easy: you can control immigration like all else in a dictatorship!

Well of course. But the question is, why did East Germany not open its doors completely as most communists I have talked to want to happen?

In East Germany guest workers were asked to return to their countries. Any guest worker who became pregnant with a German was forced to have an abortion. These policies would be completely unacceptable to most communists in somewhere like England.

[Rugoz]

In the first, most but not all Marxists, would contend that " real socialism," cannot exist in any form except on as a global system because capitalism exists on a global scale and most be dialectically replaced.

The laziest argument ever. Every ideology implemented on a global scale would have it easier because it would face no competition. I'm sure that's what Islamists tell themselves, if only we had a global caliphate there would be no corrupting influence from the infidels.

Second, the argument is a fallacy in that history doesn't work that way. Cromwell became Lord Protector of Britain and failed to make a proper capitalist republic, yet I don't hear capitalists in a republic screaming that the creation of a capitalist republic is impossible because Cromwell failed.

It's really hard to argue that central planning wasn't a failure in modern history. Although you could argue it was successful in what it was designed for, namely to centralize power in the hands of a few. Wanna-be socialists always fall for that old trick

[Atlantis]

To say that "real socialism didn't work," is to ignore two things:

In the first, most but not all Marxists, would contend that " real socialism," cannot exist in any form except on as a global system because capitalism exists on a global scale and most be dialectically replaced.

That comes down to saying that communism will never be anything put a pipe-dream. Politics is not about having your ideal world presented to you on a golden platter. Politics is about adopting the most appropriate policies to deal with issues in the real world. Thus, communism will always remain a theory.

Anyways, during the 60s and 70s the socialist model had gone "global" almost as much as the capitalist system. I don't believe that communism or any such system will ever again come to be adopted on such a large scale. Real socialism failed not because it lacked global expansion but because the market economies achieved better results both in economic terms and in terms of human liberties.

Second, the argument is a fallacy in that history doesn't work that way. Cromwell became Lord Protector of Britain and failed to make a proper capitalist republic, yet I don't hear capitalists in a republic screaming that the creation of a capitalist republic is impossible because Cromwell failed.

Capitalism like communism (I use these simplifications for the sake of brevity) may succeed or not for a number of different reasons. But the fact remains that the market economy achieved better results than real socialism in virtually all cases, and most notably in the comparable cases of East and West Germany.

Thus, short of a miracle happening, we can safely conclude that communism does not work.

It is pure hubris to expect billions of people to blindly trust an intellectual model that has failed each and every test and caused untold harm to hundreds of millions.

the question is, why did East Germany not open its doors completely as most communists I have talked to want to happen?

Oh, I see! This is an elaborate way of saying that communists don't put their money were their mouth is. I never thought that we needed any proof for that.

In East Germany guest workers were asked to return to their countries. Any guest worker who became pregnant with a German was forced to have an abortion.

Well, not quite. Some managed to stay. Even today there are Vietnamese in Germany who were sent to the GDR as guest workers. Anyways, guest workers in West Germany too were supposed to return to their country. In Germany they say "we invited workers, but humans came." In other words, a laborer is a human being too who has all kinds of personal ambitions that cannot be reduced to his role of being a temporary guest worker. Many will form attachments with their host country and end up staying. Such is the normal course of life.

These policies would be completely unacceptable to most communists in somewhere like England.

Obviously, that is the difference between theoretical and real socialism.

[Albert]

Atlantis' cookie cut liberalism makes me cringe. "We invited workers but humans came". That is so cute Atlantis, maybe we can make that into a bedtime song for our children.

Even though communist ideal society was never achieved and perhaps can never be achieved. Similar can be said of western liberal societies, they too had failed again and again, to achieve ideal society they set out to become.

One example is that liberalism failed at its primary goal, that is establishing a republic without a class of powerful people that influence its political process. Basically the old aristocracy has been replaced by plutocracy. Where people with considerable wealth influence political process for their own private and narrow interests. This is a big no no for liberal ideal society.

This also is one of the primary reasons as I see it, which gave rise to communism that seeks to correct this.

Edit:
Also I would like to second PI confusion as to what exactly communist stand is concerning immigration. As for one they claim they are against it for most part. Yet their actions at times prove otherwise. For one TIG when we were having one debate about immigration and racism claimed that he was having lunch with his Indian co-worker and it was one of the greatest experience in life he has ever enjoyed. In comparison I was just an ignorant racist hillbilly.

Potemkin on the other hand in the wake of Brexit called me a tool and a shill and that my anti-immigration support for Brexit was used to forward Brexit campaign or as the great fudge as he referred to it. So it leaves me perplexed as to exactly what the communist stand is on non-European immigration.

Decky is also another example, he said to me that he has more in common with an African Zulu man then a French, and rather share his living space with him then any other frog.

[The Immortal Goon]

This all seems like a lot of right wing hurt feels that we're being asked to appologize for.

In no particular order:

1. I'm probably being too specific with the word, "socialism." This is not to say that I don't support workers' states or states that adhere to socialism, just that a socialist system (like the current capitalist system) cannot operate without the world. To criticize socialism for not working as well as capitalism because four countries where socialists took over that had not previously had shoes as a common object failed to live up to the most powerful countries the Earth had ever seen constantly attacking them is pretty weak tea. it also doesn't account for anything nuanced, like why powerful countries are powerful and where capitalism comes from, instead relying on the base idea that because things are now, they always have been, and always will be.

2. I explained why I advocate for immigration. If you don't like it, too bad. I'm not going to appologize for your butt hurt feelings.

3. I'm not sorry I had a good lunch with someone. It actually makes it better that someone who tries to act like the epitome of alpha manliness has to explain how badly his feelings were hurt as a result. Just because of this, I'm going to go out of my way to have lunch with an immigrant at a place where I know they employ illegal workers.

[SolarCross]

If socialism is constrained to a national scale you will get something that is functionally fascist if not ideologically fascist. So the DDR would be national socialism in practice if not in theory. The USSR for not having the whole world under its dominion basically had to be imperial socialist in order advance towards that goal.

Migration control doesn't seem hugely relevant, most governments do it to some extent, a rational government will control it on the basis of perceived utility. If your lands are the target of large numbers of migrants you will probably want to keep most of them out, if your lands are the source of large numbers of migrants you will probably want to keep most of them in.

Immigrants bring more hands to be taxed but also more mouths to feed, they may have desirable skills, property or knowledge or have diseases or be afflicted with toxic ideas or be a security risk in some other way.

Emmigrants take with them their productivity but are also one less mouth to feed, they will take their skills and knowledge with them and if they can their property too, but also if they are a security risk then their moving away lessens that.