[Marxism] Another side of the Berlin Wall

Nestor Gorojovsky nmgoro at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 20:02:41 MST 2009

Lueko Willms escribió:
> Nestor Gorojovsky (nmgoro at gmail.com) wrote on 2009-11-24 at 15:19:06
> in  
> about Re: [Marxism] Another side of the Berlin Wall:
>> It was not a wall erected to protect the workers.
>    OK. Without reserve. 
>> But those who tore it down were absolutely decided to turn the workers, 
>> particularly the workers in Eastern Germany, into shit.
>    Dear Nestor, here I have to disagree with you. 
>    The Wall was torn down by workers from East Berlin, not by the
> tanks of 
> the US, British and French military stationed in West Berlin, nor by
> the armored cars of the West Berlin police or by the Bundeswehr of
> the FRG. 
>    The people of the GDR had not been "decided to turn the workers
> into shit", 
> but they had not the understanding of the actual situation, and left
> the power 
> to the German bourgeoisie. They had illusions, and most were baffled
> later to 
> find out what had really happened to them. 
>    I remember those workers from a factory in Leipzig which I met at
> one of 
> those "Monday demonstrations": they were eager to get a capitalist
> from West 
> Germany as a new boss, because they hoped that this would improve
> their 
> situation, and bring them the same material advantages which they
> saw, or 
> thought to see, at their class comrades or personal relatives in the
> West. 
>    The fact is, that four decades of stalinist burocratic rule had
> managed to 
> eradicate class consciousness in the working class. It will still
> take some time, before a new beginning can be made on a mass scale. 
>    But, OK, we know that the only stable element is that there can be
> big surprises at every moment, and that history can move faster than
> we ever thought at the least expected moments. 

Maybe we don´t disagree as much.

The stalinist rule was a byproduct of the isolation of the Soviet Union 
and the victory of the Western bourgeoisie over their own workers, 
particularly in the German events of 1923. Since that moment ahead, the 
metaphor by Trotsky ("a coin tossed to the air") began to work. So that 
the demoralization was in the end a product of the victory of the 
Western bourgeois.

And as to who _did materially tear the Wall down_, it is not effectual 
to my point. When imperialist workers use their guns and machine guns 
against another peoples, of course it is they who "win" the battles on 
the battlefield. But the actual origins of those wars are not located in 
the interests and ideals of those workers turned soldiers. They are 
located in the interests and necessities of bourgeois rule of the world.

The attack on the workers of Eastern Europe (particularly so on those of 
Eastern Germany) was an all out attack. That is, every weapon was 
employed. Ideas can be weapons, as everybody knows.

Maybe you understand that in this sense, we agree. Which does not mean 
that we might not be in disagreement on other points. But I think that 
not on this one.

Your comment on the Leipzig workers, in fact, helps me on this "debate".

More information about the Marxism mailing list