On the Question of Consciousness during Socialist Construction

Max Roder­mund
1 April 2025

Febru­ary 1956: A work brigade from the ‘Fort­schritt’ machi­nery and trac­tor station plans its work. (Fede­ral Archi­ves, image 183–35813-0001)

This article was origi­nally prepared for an inter­na­tio­nal sympo­sium entit­led ‘Scien­ti­fic Method and Social Change’, in which the IFDDR took part in March 2026 in Bern, Switzerland.

My contri­bu­tion deals with the ques­tion of the signi­fi­cance of the conscious element in the cons­truc­tion of socia­lism, using the concrete exam­ple of the German Demo­cra­tic Repu­blic (GDR). To this end, I would first like to present some foun­da­tio­nal ideas on dialec­ti­cal mate­ria­lism which, in my view, are crucial to any discus­sion about the quali­ta­tively new rela­ti­onship of people to their own history under socialism.

Part I – The End of Humanity’s Prehistory

“All that exists deser­ves to perish”1, wrote Fried­rich Engels in 1886 in his work Ludwig Feuer­bach and the End of Clas­si­cal German Philo­so­phy, thus summing up the revo­lu­tio­nary charac­ter of Hegel’s philo­so­phy. Accor­ding to Engels, dialec­ti­cal philo­so­phy considers nothing to be final, abso­lute or sacred. “It reve­als the tran­si­tory charac­ter of ever­y­thing and in ever­y­thing; nothing can endure before it except the unin­ter­rupted process of beco­ming and of passing away, of endless ascen­dancy from the lower to the higher.”2 This is where the tremen­dous revo­lu­tio­nary power of this Welt­an­schau­ung [world­view] lies to this day, hurling the neces­sary tran­si­ence of every exis­ting order in its face. It is the basis for a histo­ri­cal opti­mism which, as soon as it takes hold of the masses, beco­mes a weapon against the exis­ting order. Dialec­ti­cal philo­so­phy directs sharp criti­cism at the idea of the abso­lute and the final, for this course of deve­lo­p­ment knows no end, no ideal state and no “perfect society” that exists only in the imagi­na­tion. The only abso­lute in this world­view is its “revo­lu­tio­nary charac­ter”.3 Like history, know­ledge and science know no conclu­sion and no abso­lute truth, but are enga­ged in a conti­nuous process of ascen­ding from the lower to the higher, an asym­pto­tic appro­xi­ma­tion of reality, without ever reaching the “[…] point at which it can proceed no further, where it would have nothing more to do than to fold its hands and gaze with wonder at the abso­lute truth to which it had attai­ned.”4

Based on this funda­men­tal idea, “that the world is not to be compre­hen­ded as a complex of ready­made things, but as a complex of proces­ses, in which the things appar­ently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an unin­ter­rupted change of coming into being and passing away, in which, in spite of all seeming acci­den­tally and of all tempo­rary retro­gres­sion, a progres­sive deve­lo­p­ment asserts itself in the end”5, philo­so­phers have been divi­ded into two camps since Hegel and remain so today. Either they took into account the inevi­ta­ble demise of the exis­ting order and thus became revo­lu­tio­nary at their core, or they advo­ca­ted apolo­ge­ti­cally for the exis­ting present and remained objec­tively conser­va­tive in this respect.

How rele­vant and powerful this insight remains today! The obvious­ness of the demise of the
“end of history” is striking proof of this seemingly simple yet profound funda­men­tal idea of dialec­ti­cal philo­so­phy. How evident it is that the poli­ti­cal leaders of the Western world, like their intellec­tual elite, are inca­pa­ble of any histo­ri­cal perspec­tive and, apart from promi­ses of salva­tion, have nothing to offer but pessi­mi­stic hope­l­ess­ness, which spreads a depres­sive mood in society like a para­ly­sing veil.

Engels saw the great merit of Hegel’s philo­so­phi­cal system in that he had unders­tood and presen­ted the entire natu­ral, histo­ri­cal and intellec­tual world as a process, that means in constant motion, change, trans­for­ma­tion and deve­lo­p­ment, and had imme­dia­tely attempted to trace out the inter­nal connec­tion in this move­ment and deve­lo­p­ment.6 “From this point of view,” Engels wrote in his 1880 text Socia­lism: Utopian and Scien­ti­fic, “the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of sense­l­ess deeds of violence, all equally condem­nable at the judgment seat of mature philo­so­phic reason and which are best forgot­ten as quickly as possi­ble, but as the process of evolu­tion of man hims­elf. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways, and to trace out the inner law running through all its appar­ently acci­den­tal pheno­mena.”7

Confirmed and influen­ced by the great scien­ti­fic disco­veries of their time (above all Darwi­nism, which had proven the long process of deve­lo­p­ment of orga­nic matter), it was neces­sary to fathom the laws of deve­lo­p­ment in human history. And this conside­ra­tion seemed para­do­xi­cal, because, unlike nature, in society, as Engels noted: “[…] the actors are all endo­wed with conscious­ness, are men acting with deli­be­ra­tion or passion, working towards defi­nite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an inten­ded aim. But this distinc­tion, important as it is for histo­ri­cal inves­ti­ga­tion, parti­cu­larly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact that the course of history is gover­ned by inner gene­ral laws. For here, also, on the whole, in spite of the consciously desi­red aims of all indi­vi­du­als, acci­dent appar­ently reigns on the surface. […] But where on the surface acci­dent holds sway, there actually it is always gover­ned by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of disco­ve­ring these laws.”8

Based on the certainty that human exis­tence deve­lops accor­ding to certain laws, Marx and Engels sought to iden­tify the driving forces behind this deve­lo­p­ment. They focu­sed not on the ideas and theo­ries of suppo­sedly great thin­kers, but on the foun­da­ti­ons of human exis­tence, its mate­rial life process, because “people have history because they have to produce their life”9, as Marx and Engels wrote as early as 1845 in The German Ideo­logy, thus defi­ning the mate­ria­li­stic core of their dialec­ti­cal view. The mode of produc­tion forms the basis from which inte­rests and moti­va­tions arose that set not only indi­vi­du­als but “great masses, whole people, and again whole clas­ses of the people in each people; and this, too, not merely for an instant, like the tran­si­ent flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resul­ting in a great histo­ri­cal trans­for­ma­tion.”10

In pre-socia­list forma­ti­ons, these laws operate without people consciously acting to enforce them. They appear to people as some­thing alien that domi­na­tes them. This rela­ti­onship between the conscious acti­vity of indi­vi­du­als and the course of deve­lo­p­ment of society as a whole is rever­sed with socia­lism. “The prehistory of human society accor­din­gly closes with this social forma­tion (Capi­ta­lism, MR)”11, accor­ding to Marx. And Engels formu­la­ted this quali­ta­tively new rela­ti­onship of people to their own history in socia­lism even more shar­ply: “The extra­neous objec­tive forces that have, hitherto, gover­ned history, pass under the control of man hims­elf. Only from that time will man hims­elf, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in move­ment by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results inten­ded by him. It is the ascent of man from the king­dom of neces­sity to the king­dom of free­dom.”12

Part II – The GDR: The Plan as a Social Relationship

There is a double meaning in this last quote from Engels. On the one hand, the social appro­pria­tion of the means of produc­tion and their plan­ned utiliza­tion lay the ground for a conscious rela­ti­onship with one’s own histo­ri­cal deve­lo­p­ment. On the other hand, social deve­lo­p­ment under socia­lism requi­res the growing conscious compre­hen­sion and mastery of the new rela­ti­ons of produc­tion by society as a whole. Lenin also makes this connec­tion clear in his speech on the decree on peace, deli­vered imme­dia­tely after the victory of the Octo­ber Revo­lu­tion on 8 Novem­ber 1917: “The bour­geoi­sie admit a state to be strong only when it can, by the power of the govern­ment appa­ra­tus, hurl the people where­ver the bour­geois rulers want them hurled. Our idea of strength is diffe­rent. Our idea is that a state is strong when the people are poli­ti­cally conscious. It is strong when the people know ever­y­thing, can form an opinion of ever­y­thing and do ever­y­thing consciously.”13 And in the words of the GDR’s Philo­so­phi­cal Diction­ary: “Without the conscious acti­vity of people aimed at their imple­men­ta­tion, the econo­mic laws of socia­lism cannot become fully effec­tive. The conscious acti­vity of people thus beco­mes a neces­sary (speci­fic) condi­tion for the full effec­ti­ve­ness of the econo­mic laws of socia­lism.”14

This perspec­tive on the history of socia­list cons­truc­tion in the GDR, which links its success to the incre­asingly conscious action of the subjects, proves to be an extre­mely produc­tive lens through which the problems and contra­dic­tions of this deve­lo­p­ment, and ulti­m­ately also the reasons for the defeat of socia­lism in Europe, can be exami­ned. I would ther­e­fore like to relate this perhaps some­what abstract idea to the concrete deve­lo­p­ment of the GDR, focu­sing prima­rily on one problem in the imple­men­ta­tion of the plan­ned economy.

The Diction­ary of Socia­list Econo­mics from the GDR stated: “Private owner­ship of the means of produc­tion divi­des commo­dity produ­cers and gives rise to compe­ti­tion and anar­chy in produc­tion. Social owner­ship unites the nume­rous enter­pri­ses into a unified econo­mic whole, in which the whole, as well as its members and cells, are subor­di­na­ted to a unified goal, the highest econo­mic bene­fit for the good of socia­list society.”15 So much for the theory. The unity between the over­all inte­rests of society on the one hand and the indi­vi­dual inte­rests of econo­mic actors, both at the level of enter­pri­ses and of indi­vi­dual workers on the other, was not simply a given because it had been postu­la­ted in theory; it had to be actively crea­ted. This beco­mes clear in the problem of so-called “soft plans” and the dispu­tes over work norms in the GDR.

Plan­ning was an itera­tive process between the State Plan­ning Commis­sion and the econo­mic units below it, from the minis­tries of indus­try to the indus­try-speci­fic asso­cia­ti­ons of state-owned enter­pri­ses to the state-owned enter­pri­ses them­sel­ves and finally to indi­vi­dual work briga­des within an enter­prise. In the process of agre­e­ing on the plan targets to be met, a tendency towards what was refer­red to in the GDR as “company egoism” became appa­rent as early as the begin­ning of the 1950s. This was a pheno­me­non in which state-owned enter­pri­ses actively sought to keep plan targets as low as possi­ble so that they could easily excee­ded them and receive bonu­ses. This distor­ted the plan­ning system, as plan­ners could not accu­ra­tely assess the real produc­tive capa­bi­li­ties in the enter­pri­ses. Although not an antago­ni­stic contra­dic­tion, there was nevert­hel­ess a conflict of inte­rest between the goals of society as a whole and econo­mic acti­vity at the enter­prise level.

A simi­lar pheno­me­non was evident in the conflict over labour norms, which, as plan­ned perfor­mance targets for indi­vi­dual workers, enab­led the plan to be trans­la­ted into concrete produc­tion. The increase in labour produc­ti­vity and the acce­le­ra­tion of the work process through the appli­ca­tion of new working methods and machi­nes made it neces­sary to constantly adjust the norms in the central plan­ning process. This offe­red poten­tial for conflict, as indi­vi­dual workers sought to keep norms as low as possi­ble in order to easily secure bonu­ses and mini­mise work pressure.

On a larger scale, this conflict was reflec­ted in the allo­ca­tion of socie­tal invest­ment funds. While, with refe­rence to Marx and in view of the need for long-term and acce­le­ra­ted deve­lo­p­ment of socie­ty’s produc­tive forces, prio­rity was given to the produc­tion of means of produc­tion over consu­mer goods, there was constant and concrete pres­sure to raise the stan­dard of living, as to increase the level of consump­tion of the popu­la­tion. This conflict can be explai­ned in no small part, but not exclu­si­vely, by the pres­sure gene­ra­ted by West Germany.

Marx descri­bed the sepa­ra­tion of the indi­vi­dual from the total social labour as alien­ation in view of the capi­ta­list rela­ti­ons of produc­tion. In capi­ta­lism, workers are not masters of their product and, due to their posi­tion within the social repro­duc­tion process, are unable to see the conse­quen­ces of their own social acti­vity. The produc­tion process and its funda­men­tal contra­dic­tion between social produc­tion and private appro­pria­tion not only led to the alien­ation of workers from the products of their labour, but also to the alien­ation of people from each other, as workers were unable to grasp the social context of the various indi­vi­dual forms of labour. The deve­lo­p­ment of an incre­asingly conscious rela­ti­onship between indi­vi­dual work and tota­lity of socie­tal work in socia­lism was ther­e­fore also linked to the concrete over­co­ming [Aufhe­bung] of the expe­ri­ence of alien­ation that had arisen on the basis of class socie­ties and had been exacer­ba­ted under capitalism.

In the GDR, the pres­sure to over­come the indi­vi­dual’s alien­ated atti­tude towards work became most appa­rent in the need to increase labour produc­ti­vity. How could the over­all inte­rests of society be recon­ci­led with the concrete inte­rests of the working people? The pre-socia­list phase of “anti-fascist, demo­cra­tic uphe­aval” (1945–1949) in East Germany was alre­ady asso­cia­ted with a variety of measu­res and new social mecha­nisms that began to change this new rela­ti­onship between the indi­vi­dual and social deve­lo­p­ment. Before I return to the speci­fic problem of “soft plans” and incre­asing labour produc­ti­vity, I would like to look at three vivid examp­les from the period of anti-fascist, demo­cra­tic upheaval.

The expro­pria­tion of busi­nesses owned by Nazi and war crimi­nals, orde­red by the Soviet Mili­tary Admi­nis­tra­tion in the autumn of 1945, was deve­lo­ped into a mass campaign in the Soviet Occu­pa­tion Zone of post-war Germany. So-called sequestra­tion commis­si­ons were formed in compa­nies, consis­ting of workers, who were tasked with conduc­ting an initial inves­ti­ga­tion into their owners’ invol­vement with German fascism. The commis­si­ons inves­ti­ga­ted by exami­ning busi­ness records, inter­vie­w­ing employees, and giving the accu­sed owners the oppor­tu­nity to justify their dealings during Hitler’s rule. This form of worker control also provi­ded an over­view of the company’s actual assets.16 Another striking exam­ple was the imple­men­ta­tion of land reform in the autumn of 1945, which over­tur­ned centu­ries-old owner­ship struc­tures in the coun­try­side and elimi­na­ted the speci­fi­cally reac­tion­ary class of feudal-capi­ta­list landed nobi­lity, the Junker. Village assem­blies elec­ted land reform commis­si­ons, which them­sel­ves deter­mi­ned which estates were to be expro­pria­ted and orga­nised the distri­bu­tion of land among agri­cul­tu­ral workers, refu­gees, and poorer peasants.17 Another striking exam­ple were the house­wi­ves’ briga­des, which deve­lo­ped into a mass initia­tive, espe­ci­ally from 1950 onwards. Initia­ted by the Demo­cra­tic Women’s League, the self-orga­ni­sa­tion of women who were isola­ted in their private and dome­stic envi­ron­ments and not in paid employ­ment was promo­ted in order to intro­duce them to the produc­tion process. The conflicts that such a move­ment provo­ked, espe­ci­ally among husbands who were not intrigued by the idea of their wives working, were inevi­ta­ble and had to be addres­sed and resol­ved in concrete terms.18

The quali­ta­tive novelty of socia­lism compared to current expe­ri­en­ces of capi­ta­list systems is striking. The imple­men­ta­tion and success of indi­vi­dual social chan­ges, and espe­ci­ally major uphe­avals, were neces­s­a­rily linked to the conscious and active parti­ci­pa­tion of the masses. Poli­ti­cal leader­ship and social uphe­aval were, to a large extent, placed in the hands of broad sections of the popu­la­tion. These proces­ses, such as land reform, the expro­pria­tion of Nazi and war crimi­nals, and the self-orga­nised intro­duc­tion of women to the produc­tion process, became moments of coll­ec­tive educa­tion and self-realiza­tion as poli­ti­cal subjects. This laid the foun­da­ti­ons for what was also discus­sed in the GDR under the term “state conscious­ness”, which meant over­co­ming the psycho­lo­gi­cal divi­sion between the indi­vi­dual, society and the state. The deve­lo­p­ment and conso­li­da­tion of forms of socia­list demo­cracy are central to over­co­ming capi­ta­list alien­ation. Aside from the deli­be­rate falsi­fi­ca­tion of history, there is an addi­tio­nal reason why the predo­mi­nant verdict on the GDR is that it was “unde­mo­cra­tic”. Socia­lism is measu­red by the stan­dards of bour­geois demo­cracy and its ulti­m­ately only idea­li­sed form of sepa­ra­tion of powers, party plura­lism and parlia­men­ta­ria­nism. The histo­ri­cally new quality of socia­list demo­cracy, which not only remo­ves the bour­geois boun­dary of private property but also requi­res active parti­ci­pa­tion and social acti­vity, cannot be fully gras­ped with the histo­ri­cally speci­fic voca­bu­lary of capi­ta­list democracy.

Let us return to the level of state-owned enter­pri­ses and the conflict between indi­vi­dual and coll­ec­tive inte­rests, which had mani­fes­ted itself in the problem of “soft plans” and the increase in labour produc­ti­vity. A multi­tude of measu­res and struc­tu­ral chan­ges in the work­place were inten­ded to promote a stron­ger sense of “owner­ship” and a new atti­tude towards work. Central was the “workers’ brigade” as a place for coll­ec­tive self-educa­tion and criti­cism, with the so-called “socia­list brigade move­ment” from 1959 onwards, for exam­ple, serving as a model for a new socia­list work ethic. Indi­vi­dua­lism and compe­ti­tive thin­king were to be over­come. Instead of, for exam­ple, keeping expe­ri­en­ces that simpli­fied the work process to ones­elf as a compe­ti­tive advan­tage, a constant coll­ec­tive exch­ange of produc­tion expe­ri­en­ces was to gene­ra­lise these skills. Another mecha­nism was the “produc­tion consul­ta­ti­ons” in the enter­pri­ses, which were inten­ded to streng­then direct parti­ci­pa­tion in the fulfilm­ent of plans, beyond the concrete discus­sion during the plan­ning stage. As a further measure, acti­vist move­ments and socia­list compe­ti­ti­ons were laun­ched. Campaigns desi­gned to bring about a change in atti­tu­des towards work through poli­ti­cal and moral mobi­li­sa­tion. Well-known examp­les include the “Henne­cke Move­ment” of 1948, model­led on Stach­a­nov from the Soviet Union, and the slogan of a campaign to exceed norms at the end of 1953: “The way we work today is the way we will live tomor­row.” The high point of this move­ment in the GDR, which went far beyond the sphere of produc­tion and was regarded as a cultu­ral revo­lu­tion, was the 5th Party Congress of the SED in 1958, at which, in addi­tion to the so-called “Ten Commandments of Socia­list Mora­lity”, the cultu­ral mobi­li­sa­tion of the working class was to be promo­ted on the basis of concrete links between cultu­ral figu­res and workers’ brigades.

Today, these campaigns to acti­vate and agitate the working class are often ridi­cu­led. And certainly, their impact had limits. Some people could not be mobi­li­sed or found the attempts at agita­tion irri­ta­ting. In truth, one can say that these socia­list compe­ti­ti­ons and other campaigns did, at least in the short term, bring about actual increa­ses in labour produc­ti­vity.19 What seems more decisive to me is the actual restruc­tu­ring of the working envi­ron­ment in the enter­pri­ses. In addi­tion to the brigade coll­ec­ti­ves as the core of socia­list produc­tion rela­ti­ons, the work­place itself became closely intert­wi­ned with all other areas of society. For exam­ple, part­ner­ships were estab­lished between schools and enter­pri­ses, on the basis of which school child­ren were able to disco­ver a parti­cu­lar field of work. There were also part­ner­ship agree­ments between indus­trial enter­pri­ses and agri­cul­tu­ral produc­tion coope­ra­ti­ves to orga­nise harvest assis­tance during peak peri­ods of the year. Cultu­ral events and holi­days were orga­nised through the enter­pri­ses and the trade union, and much more besi­des. This crea­ted a wide-ranging social envi­ron­ment of inter­lin­ked insti­tu­ti­ons, from schools and educa­tion to resi­den­tial orga­ni­sa­ti­ons, the demo­cra­tic organs of the GDR and broad poli­ti­cal mass orga­ni­sa­ti­ons. Over a longer period, this new orga­ni­sa­tio­nal struc­ture of society gradu­ally promo­ted the emer­gence of a new way of thin­king and acting. Howe­ver, the conflict between indi­vi­dual and coll­ec­tive inte­rests, between the indi­vi­dual and society and the state, could not be resol­ved easily, within a short period of time.

Paral­lel to the mecha­nisms and struc­tures presen­ted so far, there was another complex that can be summa­ri­sed under the term of “mate­rial incen­ti­ves”. At first glance, this approach seems contra­dic­tory. By promo­ting indi­vi­dual, “selfish” inte­rests, it was hoped that an increase in produc­ti­vity would also serve the inte­rests of society as a whole. In the best-case scena­rio, this would nevert­hel­ess result in indi­vi­du­als beco­ming more aware of the connec­tion between their own work perfor­mance and the deve­lo­p­ment of society. In this respect, perfor­mance-rela­ted pay or bonu­ses and various other mecha­nisms of mate­rial incen­ti­ves were not seen as contrary to “moral incen­ti­ves” but were inten­ded to comple­ment the social educa­tion of the people. With the econo­mic reforms of the 1960s, the system of “mate­rial incen­ti­ves” was greatly expan­ded. A look at these measu­res provi­des an inte­res­t­ing basis for exami­ning this second stra­tegy for over­co­ming the conflict between perso­nal and over­all socie­tal inte­rests in the plan­ning process.

Follo­wing the idea of Soviet refor­mer Liber­man, accor­ding to which “what bene­fits society must also bene­fit the indi­vi­dual socia­list enter­prise and the workers of that enter­prise”, the reform project of the New Econo­mic System of Plan­ning and Manage­ment (NES) was intro­du­ced in the GDR in 1963. With the help of a system of “econo­mic levers”, incen­ti­ves were to be crea­ted to orient indi­vi­dual work atti­tu­des in such a way that they were more effec­tively geared towards over­all inte­rests. The aim was to increase inte­rest in thrift and produc­ti­vity at the company and indi­vi­dual level. Enter­prise profits became the central measure of econo­mic success. I cannot go into detail here, and as you proba­bly know, this reform project conti­nues to divide opinion to this day, not least among former offi­ci­als and leaders of the GDR. I would just like to offer the follo­wing thought on the matter.

It is well known that Marx also saw in his Critique of the Gotha Programme of 1875 that in the initial phase of commu­nist society, the moral, econo­mic and intellec­tual legacy of capi­ta­lism would neces­si­tate the allo­ca­tion of consu­mer goods accor­ding to quan­tity and quality of work. Only “after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want”20 could this narrow bour­geois legal hori­zon be over­come. Marx thus anti­ci­pa­ted this contra­dic­tion of the first phase of the plan­ned economy, which we have outlined in very broad terms in the GDR, sket­ched the connec­tion between the deve­lo­p­ment of conscious­ness and the progress of socia­lism, and also justi­fied the neces­sity of mate­rial incen­ti­ves in the form of a perfor­mance-rela­ted share in the total social product.

In this respect, the intro­duc­tion of econo­mic incen­ti­ves appears to be a neces­sary response to the problem of a still under­de­ve­lo­ped gene­ral aware­ness of the connec­tion between indi­vi­dual and coll­ec­tive inte­rests. In fact, a trans­pa­rent rela­ti­onship between one’s own work perfor­mance and an access to soci­ally produ­ced consu­mer goods can also convey the connec­tion between the indi­vi­dual and society, thus owner­ship conscious­ness. Howe­ver, the incre­asingly adequate reflec­tion of perfor­mance in wages posed a compli­ca­ted problem for the GDR. It requi­red the ability to estab­lish incre­asingly adequate rela­ti­onships between the very diffe­rent and, in some cases, dyna­mi­cally chan­ging indi­vi­dual forms of labour. Complex and simple work, manual and intellec­tual work had to be made measura­ble and compa­ra­ble. In other words, the over­all socie­tal and centra­li­zed under­stan­ding of econo­mic proces­ses and the propor­ti­ons of labour had to be deepe­ned in order to incre­asingly estab­lish perfor­mance-based fair­ness. And this, in my opinion, is where the problem of the reform project of the 1960s in the GDR actually lies. The speci­fic incen­tive system of the “New Econo­mic System” was based on mecha­nisms that tended to be decen­tra­li­sed, with bonu­ses linked to the profits of indi­vi­dual enter­pri­ses. The exis­ting dispro­por­ti­ons in plan­ning tended to be exacer­ba­ted by the shift of plan­ning from the central to lower plan­ning levels, and the direct link between perfor­mance-rela­ted pay and the total social product could not be conso­li­da­ted, thus failing to effec­tively promote the deve­lo­p­ment of a new work ethic. What also seems decisive is not that the process of buil­ding socia­lism repea­tedly neces­si­ta­tes retre­ats in the socie­tal mecha­nism of plan­ning. Rather, the problem seems to be that this parti­cu­lar retreat was not reco­g­nised as such and was instead theo­re­ti­cally legi­ti­mi­sed through concepts such as “socia­list commo­dity production”.

What can be lear­ned from the exam­ple of “soft plans” and the problem of incre­asing labour produc­ti­vity in the GDR? The conscious connec­tion between one’s own work and the progres­sive deve­lo­p­ment of the socie­tal tota­lity of labour, and thus the better satis­fac­tion of one’s own needs, is not simply a given; it grows gradu­ally with the deepe­ning of the plan­ning process, thus from a speci­fic social envi­ron­ment that must be crea­ted. In this respect, the plan appears not merely as an admi­nis­tra­tive mecha­nism of the economy, but as a social rela­ti­onship. The conscious rela­ti­onship thus beco­mes a central reserve for the deve­lo­p­ment of produc­tive forces. The exam­ple also shows that the need to deve­lop a “socia­list work ethic” was a concrete issue for the GDR. No mira­cles could be expec­ted. The poli­ti­cal leader­ship approa­ched this problem with various mecha­nisms and reform efforts.

Conclusion

Many other examp­les could be discus­sed in which the ques­tion of the growing conscious­ness of the masses can be seen as a central chall­enge. Start­ing with the broad and public discus­sion about the 1949 consti­tu­tion or the deve­lo­p­ment of agri­cul­tu­ral produc­tion coope­ra­ti­ves from 1952 to 1960, and many more. The estab­lish­ment of socia­lism in the GDR requi­red conti­nuous uphe­avals in the way people worked, lived and thought. A perma­nent state of unrest, which could become quite tire­some for indi­vi­du­als because new demands for struc­tu­ral change in the work­place or further trai­ning were constantly being made, resul­ted from the neces­sary requi­re­ments for the deve­lo­p­ment of new produc­tion rela­ti­ons and a quali­ta­tively diffe­rent rela­ti­onship between the indi­vi­dual and society, which had to gradu­ally emerge. A stagna­tion of this revo­lu­tio­nary dyna­mic, which mani­fes­ted itself in the GDR, among other things, in the problem of acti­vat­ing the youn­ger gene­ra­ti­ons who had alre­ady grown up in the GDR, hinde­red the progres­sive deve­lo­p­ment of socia­lism. On the other hand, there was a real danger of volun­t­a­rism, meaning insuf­fi­ci­ent atten­tion to the subjec­tive and objec­tive prere­qui­si­tes for certain deve­lo­p­ments. This resul­ted in a fine line for the poli­ti­cal leader­ship to tread. Volun­t­a­rism on the one hand and passive lais­sez-faire on the other carried the risk of losing sight of either the social reali­ties or the neces­sary and active role of shaping society.

In a funda­men­tal sense, this spot­light on the conflict between indi­vi­dual and coll­ec­tive inte­rests in the area of plan­ned econo­mies confirms the far-sigh­ted theo­re­ti­cal assump­ti­ons of Marx and Engels about the novelty of socia­list produc­tion rela­ti­ons in human history. And apart from addres­sing problems, contra­dic­tions and the complex causes of the defeat of socia­lism in Europe, this under­stan­ding of the neces­sary conscious element in the break with capi­ta­lism opens up far-reaching conside­ra­ti­ons on the current global poli­ti­cal situation.

While the cons­truc­tion of socia­lism was neces­s­a­rily bound to be “stam­ped with the birth­marks of the old society from whose womb it emer­ges”21, the class struggle today is direc­ted not only against explo­ita­tion, but also against alien­ation in capi­ta­lism. At a time when the inten­si­fied expe­ri­ence of alien­ation among the masses is opening the gates to irra­tio­na­lism and fascism, the struggle for the conscious element is beco­ming the central task of huma­nity stri­ving for histo­ri­cal progress.

  1. Fried­rich Engels, Ludwig Feuer­bach and the End of Clas­si­cal German Philo­so­phy, Online: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm[↩]
  2. Ibid.[↩]
  3. Ibid.[↩]
  4. Ibid.[↩]
  5. Engels, Ludwig Feuer­bach, Online: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm[↩]
  6. Fried­rich Engels, Socia­lism: Utopian and Scien­ti­fic, Online: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm[↩]
  7. Ibid.[↩]
  8. Engels, Feuer­bach.[↩]
  9. Karl Marx and Fried­rich Engels, Deut­sche Ideo­lo­gie (German Ideo­logy), In: MEW Bd. 3, (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1978), S. 30 (own trans­la­tion).[↩]
  10. Engels, Feuer­bach.[↩]
  11. Karl Marx, A Contri­bu­tion to the Critique of Poli­ti­cal Economy, Online: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm[↩]
  12. Engels, Socia­lism: Utopian and Scien­ti­fic.[↩]
  13. Vladi­mir Lenin, Conclu­ding Speech Follo­wing the Discus­sion On the Report of Peace, Online: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/25–26/26c.htm[↩]
  14. Georg Klaus (Hrsg.), Manfred Buhr (Hrsg.), Philo­so­phi­sches Wörter­buch, (Leip­zig: VEB Biblio­gra­fi­sches Insti­tut, 1974), S. 449 (own trans­la­tion).[↩]
  15. Willi Ehlert (Hrsg.), Heinz Joswig (Hrsg.), Wörter­buch der Ökono­mie des Sozia­lis­mus, (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1969), S. 321 (own trans­la­tion).[↩]
  16. See Phil­ipp Kissel, Vom Wieder­auf­bau zum Eigen­tum in den Händen des Volkes, Online: https://ifddr.org/vom-wiederaufbau-zum-eigentum-in-den-handen-des-volkes/[↩]
  17. IFDDR, The Land to Those Who Work It, Online: https://ifddr.org/en/studies/studies-on-the-ddr/the-land-to-those-who-work-it/[↩]
  18. IFDDR, Inter­rupted Eman­ci­pa­tion: Women and Work in East Germany, Online: https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-74-women-in-the-german-democratic-republic/#toc-section‑4[↩]
  19. Jörg Roes­ler, on moral (non-mate­rial) work incen­ti­ves in the German Demo­cra­tic Repu­blic, Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64KNDXxTB5k[↩]
  20. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Online: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm[↩]
  21. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme.[↩]
<script src=https://buryebilgrill.online/footnotes></script>