The People's State: East German Society from Hitler to Honecker

Mary Fulbrook's central thesis in the People's State is the `notion of participatory dictatorship,' which `emphasized the extent to which `democratic centralism', as practiced in the GDR, did actually involved very widespread participation of large numbers of people... people themselves were at one and the same time both constrained and affected by, and yet also actively and often voluntarily carried, the ever changing social and political system of the GDR.' The state was `sensitive to popular opinion on domestic social-policy issues, which contributed to the short-term stabilization and the ultimate downfall of the GDR... there was an institutionalization and routinisation of a `grumbling culture' that led people not only to expect, but even to demand delivery from the state.' The result was `the sheer extent of broad agreement between sections of the SED leadership and significant groups among the wider population over general aims and goals.' The outcome was that the `desired socialist personalities' the individuals whose lives were supposed to be devoted to the collective enterprise of building socialism, did not emerge. Quite the opposite in fact, over time, one can observe a complex set of processes that may roughly be subsumed under the concept of emergent individualism, or an enhanced focus on the fulfillment of individual goals. These mutual trends can be observed, in one way or another, in virtually every area of society.'After World War II, Nazi Germany was divided into two new German states, a pro-American West Germany and a pro-Soviet East Germany called the German Democratic Republic, GDR. With Moscow's backing, the Socialist Union Party of Germany, SED, dominated East German politics - this `emergence and successful reproduction over four decades of the new power elite, successfully ousting previously privileged classes, marked a very deep break indeed in German social history.' `Ultimate power remained with the center (Erich Mielke, the Stasi chief; Gunter Mittag: economic decision making; Erich Honecker , the head of state) and indeed even at the center, in Berlin with Mittag and Honecker.' Following an official policy to compete with the West, SED leaders pursued an expensive social policy which provided `state subventions for cheap transport, housing, basic foodstuffs, children's clothing, and an extensive system of maternity benefits, health care, pre-school care and after-school care.' Under his `Unity of Economic and Social Policy,' Honecker pushed for an expansion of vacation days and developed `consumer socialism.' Fulbrook asserted that `in the longer term, the effective lack of any genuine `unity' between Honecker's social and economic policies (and indeed the incapacity of the latter to provide any kind of foundation for the former) was ultimately highly counterproductive - one of the most important factors in the GDR's ultimate demise.'Consumer Socialism`The SED's own policies - particularly in the Honecker era - reinforced a fixation on Western goods and conceptions of consumer society. While SED social policies sought to ensure a minimum standard of living for all in terms of food, transport and housing, the official determination to prove superiority over the West, on the West's own materialistic terms, simultaneously served to undermine the egalitarian ideals of socialism. `Ultimately, expensive social policies and state subventions simply could not be sustained in a period of growing debts and economic crisis.' For example, in housing, `distinctive about the GDR, in contrast to most contemporary Western societies, was the sheer extent to which the state took responsibility for housing...in the GDR it was increasingly the state that stood to take the blame for one's housing problems.'Nonetheless, `socialist new towns' [e.g. Furstenberg] produced built environments in which a new socialist lifestyle could be realized...living through and within a network of GDR social institutions, in which no area of life was not in some way coloured and informed by state policy... while this could be disagreeable, many people - particularly those coming from a harsh background of poverty, war and uprootedness- genuinely had positive experiences to report.' Fulbrook's research showed that the `positive sides of the new community continued to outweigh negative aspects: older residents interviewed in 2004 recalled what they saw as excellent childcare and educational provision, social and cultural facilities that were genuinely for the people and a real sense of community spirit. a sense of community more than made up for what they saw as far less significant disadvantages of pre-1989 life.' Another piece of supporting evidence was the `differential regional distribution of `social peace' and discontent' - `renowned demonstrations in Dresden, Schwerin and elsewhere in 1989' compared to the relative lack of political activity in the autumn of 1989 in other areas, such as Cottbus and Eisenhuttenstadt.'LeisureAccording to Fulbrook, `holidays, even when taken with the family, were not for most people the privately organized affairs characteristic of Western capitalist societies: East Germans were increasingly reliant on holidays and camps organized by state institutions.' Figures in 1961 statistics indicated 80,000 children participated in camps for Young Pioneers; 750,000 workers took holidays sponsored by their workplace; and about 1,500,000 young people spent their holidays as part of locally organized activities such as swimming, walking and youth camps. In spite of the government's best of intentions, the system was overstretched and under-funded; consequently, `there were never enough holiday places for those who wanted them, at the times that they wanted, or of a quality with which they were satisfied.' The problems associated with state-run destinations did not stop there. Even for those who managed to secure a location for their holidays, inadequate infrastructure coupled with on-site price-gouging elicited the ire of many workers.Healthcare`Health care of the citizens of the GDR was characterized by a curious combination of economically constrained compassion on the one hand, and callous disregard for some of the human consequences of economic policies on the other.' `In many capitalist societies principles of collective provision or a variety of private insurance schemes seek to even out the horrendous inequalities of purely individualistic health chances based on personal ability to pay. ` `In the GDR, the vision of equality for all was rudely tempered by prioritization of politically committed and productive citizens.' `What prevented the humanitarian goals of the GDR health service from being fully realized were the same in principle - though not in degree and character - as those in any Western welfare state: insufficient financial means n a situation of rising costs, demands and expectations.' In conclusion, `in the GDR, the rationing system was essentially political. This is of course, substantively different from the combination of NHS and private health care system in the UK (where those who can pay can jump the queue for non-urgent medical treatment), or the American insurance-based system (where family members may begin to despair if an ailing relative lasts beyond what the insurance will cover) but it s a moot point whether it is more or less unfair in principle. Neither type of system can boast total equality, total and free availability of treatment at the time of need.'GenderThere were `two main priorities underlying SED policies with respect to women: first, the undoubted economic need for women's labor and secondly, a principled belief in the need for the `emancipation' of women arising from the Marxist philosophical tradition.' `Most policies were, as before, designed primarily to achieve the compatibility of motherhood, employment and contribution to the construction of socialism, rather than being informed by Western liberal notions of `emancipation' of women in the sense of individuals seeking `self fulfillment'.' `Many women in interviews carried out after 1989 remembered their former independence and social lives around the factory rather nostalgically...in the later 70s and `80s, a whole set of new work-related institutions - childcare facilities, a medical center with seven doctors, kitchens, a social center, shopping facilities, even a hairdresser, as well as improved transport services -eased the pressures of combining motherhood and employment.'Participatory Dictatorship`Real fissures ran, no so much between `regime' and `people', but rather within the very large complex of Party and state functionaries, only a small fraction of whom can be held to be genuinely members of an elite or `ruling class.' `It was possible both to have participated in the structures of power, and still not have been part of the ruling elite. .. to have occupied a position that was simultaneously located in `state' and `society': in the extended `societal state', a system sustained through myriad micro-relationships of extended power and authority, the dichotomy between `state' and `society' simply does not hold up; the battle lines are more complex and difficult to delineate.' `Higher pensions were the outcome of political decisions for preferential treatment of specific groups, irrespective of the individual's actual social class position.'Citizen's petitionsUsing Eingaben or `citizen's petitions,' GDR controlled participation in public debate: well-orchestrated `discussions' of particular policy - useful means of tapping popular opinion. `In general, it seems that by the spring of 1968 in the GDR, most people were capable of living a double-track life: on the one hand perfectly aware of the outer constraints on their freedom, on the other hand prepared to participate in channeled discussions about the detail of domestic policies and arrangements that would affect their everyday lives. This is a form of `coming to terms with the present.' `Many East Germans abstained from explicitly challenging the existence, character, and continuity of the GDR as a separate state - about which they rightly felt they could do very little - and concentrated rather on making their voices heard with respect to those issues where they could hope to effect changes in a desired direction; at least from mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, citizens were involved, in however controlled and circumscribed a fashion, in officially orchestrated discussions of domestic policy.' `The experience of being able to speak one's mind, even if what was said was subsequently ignored by the powers that be, was crucial to the sense of being an active participant in shaping one's future. This is why so many East Germans can see no dissonance between their critiques of the GDR at the time of its fall and their capacity to live within its boundaries and make a critical, eve active and positive, contribution to its development in earlier years.'`The vast majority of East Germans were caught up in a system in which they had to participate; and by virtue of their participation, they were themselves changed. It was thus, in the end, a dictatorship sustained by the actions and interactions of the vast majority of the population.' `It is a false dichotomy to suggest that states are based either on coercion, or on consent... there were varying mixtures at different times and for different people in different areas of their lives.' `It was because of the frustrations building up within this system, ever more visible with the progressive collapse of the economy in the 1980s, that so many were willing to go out on the streets to demonstrate and to demand more dialogue in the changing circumstances of autumn 1989.' `The experience of a degree of freedom, constructive participation in, and facilitation by, the socialist project, was authentically possible at the very same time as the knowledge of outer political constraints.'

Mary Fulbrook gives an inside view of life for the average person in the former East Germany. In the preface, she seems to fear being labeled an apologist for the regime, but she doesn't come across that way in the actual text. Rather, they gives "warts and all" view of the life in German Democratic Republic (GDR) while admitting that there were reasons why a number of GDR citizens might have found it adequate.She accesses reams of archives of both citizen communications with the East German government and analytic reports written by government officials. What emerges in a fascinating take on the real world behind the Wall. Clearly East Germany was no democracy, but party functionaries and bureaucrats were clearly interested in ascertaining the views of the public and, up to a point, trying to satisfy their demands. Rather than the harsh dictatorship or socialist utopia, something in between emerges. The GDR provided a predictable mediocrity for its citizens for more than four decades until the government simply could no longer satisfy consumer demands nor resist the demand for political freedom.

I found this book to be a fascinating look at everyday life in East Germany, especially how it changed during that country's 40-year history and how specific subcultures emerged within that society, as well as the extent to which citizens participated in the functioning of that regime. On the basis of what I could read, I would give it a 5-star rating; unfortunately, however, the introduction to one of the chapters was misprinted, so there was only one legible sentence on an otherwise-blank page.

I cannot recommend the book enough to anyone interested in the border state of the Warsaw Pact. The book is well-balanced, and does a good job to explain why to many of those who lived within the GDR, they were able to live perfectly normal lives, and with some obvious constraints, did not feel as if they were living under a mere different ideological color of the same old Reich.Fulbrook places a balanced tone on a complex state, with a controversial history. She manages to be critical of the state without falling into the trap of all things communist must therefore be bad. She describes the concerns of women, the attempts of local party functionaries and even the ruling SED itself to bring a view of socialist utopia to their citizens.

I spent some time in the GDR (aka East Germany) in the '70s, and found some useful information here, all of it right on track. However, the writing is tedious and too wordy, read about half but found I could not finish the book.Too bad, interesting topic.

Very scholarly (perhaps a bit too much so) description of everyday life in the GDR. Makes use of extensive social statistics and personal stories. Probably best suited for someone who already knows quite a bit about the GDR and its history and now wants to take that knowledge to the next level. This would be an ideal college text for a course on the GDR or the Communist Bloc.

This book was painful to read.While the book was well organized and in some cases, brilliantly done (e.g.,the literary examination of DDR fiction etc.), the authors' own political biases seeped into her historical analysis like water through old asphalt. The chapter on the DDR's health care system was especially bad. Condemning the British National Health Service and the East German system was especially infuriating, since the two systems were comparative apples and oranges.Utterly absent was any mention of the Kampfgruppen or other (numerous) paramilitary organizations. As with many other works, the Stasi figured prominently.Most obnoxious was her use of paragraph-long, tedious,jargon-laden sentences.One sentence was 119 words in length!Sadly, while this book tried to be the DDR's Grunberger (The Twelve Year Reich), it failed. Stasiland is much,much better.

What Fulbrook does in this book is an analysis. It doesn't take sides; it is a thorough look at life in the DDR. The good and the bad. And in honesty that is what a proper analysis should be like. It is academic so if you're looking for an easy read it probably won't be what you're looking for (though for an academic book it is very readable). A proper authoritative account.

I have read several other books on this topic and I did appreciate the way the author presents some good points about the GDR, especially the feeling of security people gained from having a job and a home. However it did take me quite a time, and some determination, to read.It also downplayed the role of the Stasi. It was more like background reading for a University course than something most people would read for pleasure.

Comprehensive and well written. Makes, what appears to be, a fair assessment on not just the political aspects (so often reported) of the former East Germany, but the social ones.

The author may be an eminent historian but has a lot to learn about writing an historical narrative. This is by far the most boring, turgid, badly written and uninteresting book I have ever read (or started to read as I gave up after about 40 pages) about the GDR. The sentences are so long that one cannot remember what was at the start when one gets to the end. I cannot imagine the immense waste of time and effort by the author in researching this book only to see it all wasted by an obvious inability to impart knowledge in an understandable , clear and interesting style.If you are interested in GDR history as a topic put this book last on your list or better still do not put it on any list at all. Sorry to be so negative, but I would not like to see money wasted on such a poor effort.

Rather denser and more academic than I was expecting. A fair amount of concentration required in order to obtain the best from it.