Like after WWII

[matrixmann]

If developing the idea of mixed school year tuition in school even only on a federal level because there are not enough students to fill the year classes, does that mean you're a rich country?

Comments

Part II

[matrixmann]

All these events happened before the Wall fell. All highly questionable events in the matter of "people showed the government its will", if you look at the further background.
If you ask me, it all looks like the prototype of what later became the famous "color revolutions". If you really take all the events of a wider circle together.

I also know, as people started hitting the streets with protests, they didn't scream "unite Germany!" at first. They were all for "Shitty government, stop doing your thing without asking us! Fuck off, you old skeletons - let some younger people enter reign who're not come from your elite circles!".
In concrete, it was just a fight between a government and its own citizens. The government was doing shitty business and the citizens demanded radical change from them. This didn't include giving up one's own state and unite with West Germany!

Other factor that may also add why that time and year: Franz Josef Strauß, prime minister of Bavaria, he actually had pretty good economical ties with the GDR - and he was pretty much a gangster as a politician. He knew how to get his will even with illegal means. Therefore he was feared in some way.
There was also a credit he gave to the GDR (today one knows: They used the credit to pay off other credits with worse conditions and even put a little reserve on an account in a Swiss bank, for the sake of that the GDR should get into financial troubles one day.)
Strauß died in 1988.
As long as he had lived, he surely wouldn't have let other people destroy his economical partners he makes a lot of profit from.
With him gone, another component gone that would strongly act against the trials to stir up a revolution.

If you put the puzzle together, things point into a planned action...
Could maybe name more, already as far as I know, but I save it for another time.

Re: Part II

[onb2017.livejournal.com]

You see, the thing with socialism, you cannot trust politicians, party, any authority to rule the country. It should be a dictatorship of proletariat, meaning the representatives of people delegate their will but otherwise people themselves do the politics, starting from little factory- every worker decides what is the best, then it goes to a higher level but it is still representatives of working people. I don't think in theory there should be even designated politicians, no it is part of your responsibility to participate in politics. People did not want they left it to the Party and it eventually got corrupted and all these things happening and Gorbachev and others are just opportunists, they just used the situation to their advantage.

Re: Part II

[matrixmann]

One thing that I know in general about "positons with responsibilities", this still is even this way today, barely you could find anyone who was willing and ready to do such jobs. Lots of people nagged and complained, but barely anyone was ready to take the responsibility upon his shoulders to assume an administrative function. Save the extra hours you've got to do in your free time when being politically active...
This attitude you can still find present in people today. So I don't guess this only has to do with "yeah, then the party rules what I have to do and how I have to do it...". This also has to do with some sort of general laziness.

Actually, how they understood the parliamentary contract at all, that's a thing I don't have any idea about.
Practically, other circumstances were reality than what should have actually been there, I can be sure about that. But how that was understood in general, how it should be in theory at least, that's a question I can't answer...