On coins of the German Reich from 1871 the edge inscription read "Common good comes before self-interest". Although formulated quite differently, the socialist principle of performance more or less pursued the same objective:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his performance."

In theory that was certainly not a bad idea. Unfortunately it did not work — at least not in the GDR, because by far not everyone matched the imagined image of the hardworking, honest person. That was ironically glossed over with slogans like "Knowledge is power — Ignorance doesn't matter" or "Private comes before catastrophe".

Not working, or at least not working as society expected — and consequently contributing nothing or very little to the common good — was not sanctioned. Yet living well was the norm, because no one was left to fend for themselves and even the laziest person did not have to fear for food or housing.

It is therefore no surprise that behaviors spread that could be summed up in slogans such as "Friday from one — everyone does their own thing" or "Stupidity creates free time". People like that could not be reached without coercion. Because of the bad practice that functionaries of social organizations like the SED, FDGB or FDJ in all larger enterprises were more or less exempted from work at the expense of the workforce, the lazybones were given even more ammunition.

However, the criticized behavior of some fellow citizens of the former GDR also had a deeper social cause: anyone living in a system that does not reward performance and does not sanction non-performance behaves as the system permits. In other words: that some GDR citizens acted stupidly, lazily and greedily was not a character trait of East Germans, but must be blamed on the social system.

In my firm conviction capitalism works so well because anyone who really has no desire to work is repeatedly confronted with the "torture tools", for example by beggars, the unemployed, the homeless and "Hartz IV". No one in the GDR was threatened by such fates — unfortunately, one must say, because bad examples corrupt good manners. This was shown in a drastic way by labor productivity:

"The labor productivity of the GDR in 1988 was only about 20 to 25 percent of that of the West."

Source: Federal Government: The economic situation of the GDR before the 1989 turning point

How labor productivity was suppressed by manipulating norms and by loafing during working hours I witnessed myself when, in 1967 and 1969 respectively I worked for a few weeks at the then VEB Wasserversorgung und Abwasserbehandlung Gera, Betriebsbereich Pößneck.

To obtain one DM (West) one had to pay between four and five Ost-Mark at the exchange booths at Bahnhof Zoo in West Berlin. This exchange rate, branded by the GDR side as "Schwindelkurs", corresponded quite closely to the ratio of labor productivity between East and West. Whether this was pure coincidence or whether deeper economic relationships forced it, is beyond my knowledge. One thing, however, I believe I can say with certainty: the severe lag in the GDR's labor productivity was not unknown to the leading comrades. Knowing the following statement by Lenin, all alarm bells should have been ringing among them:

"Labor productivity is ultimately the most important, the decisive factor for the victory of the new social order."

Source: W. I. Lenin, "Die große Initiative"

Instead of pulling out all the stops to overcome the lag, they indulged in self-congratulation. Typical of this, for example, are the remarks of the economist J. Kuczynski in his book "Dialog mit meinem Urenkel", which at the time found great resonance in the GDR. As he did, the entire SED elite probably relied on capitalism collapsing on its own under the laws of economics. As we have seen, things turned out differently.

The viability of capitalism is once again being called into question today because of climate change. Many left-wing actors on the political stage demand "System Change". This side of the critique of capitalism, however, is not really new.

Wolfgang Harich, for example, a Marxist critical of the system who was arrested by the GDR authorities in 1956, sentenced to ten years in prison in 1957 and amnestied in 1964, already warned in 1975 in a text on the reception of the Club of Rome reports about the dangers of climate change:

"Industrialization has set in motion processes that in part drive toward a new ice age, in part toward death by heat, and no one knows how they will develop, under what storm catastrophes, or whether they will ever balance out. The recent anomalous winter temperatures already bode ill."

Source: Wolfgang Harich, 1975 – Full text as PDF at detopia.de

He argued forcefully that capitalism must be overcome to prevent the destruction of humanity, which would inevitably result if economic growth continued. Only communism could save humanity.

"The overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the realization of communism are the prerequisites for enforcing the demands of the Club of Rome in society."

Source: Harich, ibid.

In this context he describes how, in his view, communism should be organized. The Marxian formula for satisfying needs in communism "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!" (Karl Marx: Critique of the Gotha Program) cannot be maintained in the face of ecological constraints. He essentially argues, more or less openly, for an eco-dictatorship, because not everyone can enjoy all luxuries but must restrict themselves to what is necessary.

"Our program for satisfying needs must, with the intention of keeping it within ecologically responsible limits, be preceded by a differentiated critical inventory of all the needs that have developed in humans over the course of history; needs that have been left to us particularly by class society, with the luxury and prestige consumption of its ruling strata, and above all by capitalism with its profit hunting, its competition between capitals, and its drive to open up ever new markets. … Environmentally appropriate behavior, frugal use of raw materials and energy, ecologically responsible consumption, protection of nature, moral condemnation of all waste, etc., must have become 'primary life needs', i.e. habitual reflexes, before the realization of the formula 'to each according to his needs' can be contemplated …"

Source: Harich, ibid.

Everyone, for example, wants a "weekend house on a plot of land on the shore of a lake." But this need could not be satisfied "even in Finland, the land of a thousand lakes." A "need that is directed at this consumer good, this use-value, would therefore have to be considered 'anti-communist'." Harich insists that ecology must not be ignored,

"... when lakes and lakeshores are at stake, whose ecosystems suffer devastating effects from the sprawl of weekend houses and plots. In such cases a society that is not merely socialist but communist proves to be the salvation, provided its strict principle of equality is used by the proletarian state as an instrument to suppress nature-hostile needs (which in the example cited here are at the same time anti-communist needs)."

Source: Harich, ibid.

Against this background my GDR – FRG comparison contains predominantly "anti-communist needs." And before we reach the state of communist conditions I once even endorsed, we'd probably have to part with our property!

The question of needs cannot be dismissed so flippantly, because behind it – see above – lies the question of economic growth and ultimately the question of the population's prosperity. Growing resource consumption and increasing environmental burden have so far seemed inseparably linked to this. By curbing needs, this problem can at least be solved in theory. But the cut would have to be extremely drastic, because Americans, for example, consume three times more than the Earth can provide or withstand in terms of impact. For the FRG an overload of 150% was calculated, and for all countries of the world taken together an "Overshoot" of 160% was determined (figures according to Germanwatch). No one can seriously believe that people will voluntarily refrain from that. Even less likely or reasonable to expect is that the broad mass of people in countries like India or the Congo will remain at their current standard of living. Giving up the comforts of modern life under the motto "Back to the trees" is therefore not a solution. Only if economic growth on the one hand and resource use and environmental burden on the other are sustainably decoupled can today's and future needs be reconciled with an intact environment in the long run.

The following graphic shows how the demand on the environment worldwide would have to develop if by 2050 not only climate neutrality were achieved but all other environmental burdens were also to be reduced to a level compatible with the Earth. It is assumed that the world economy grows by 3.3% per year (starting from 2020 = 100%), which is the average growth rate from 1980 to 2020 (based on data from Statista). At the same time, the sum of resource use and environmental burden of all countries on this planet must decrease by at least 1.55% per year. The latter results in the demand on the environment being reduced from 160% of the tolerable level in 2020 to 100% in 2050.

The closer we get to the 2050 target, the larger the gap between the two curves must become.

Let's see if our politicians can find a way there …

← Back to the GDR – FRG comparison