Peter Ruben (1933-2024): Philosophy of Labor in the "Workers' State"

Kai Froeb2026

This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.

The Systematic Question: What Does Property Mean?

Peter Ruben embodied the greatest irony of GDR philosophy:

The GDR’s claim: We are the “workers’ state.” The workers own the means of production.

Ruben’s philosophy: Labor is the central category of materialism (not “matter”). Property is owner-consciousness—an active process of appropriation, not mere attribution.

Result: In 1981 Ruben was expelled from the SED for “revisionism,” given a publication and teaching ban. His philosophy of labor was forbidden in the “workers’ state.”

The question: Why was a philosophy of labor persecuted in the workers’ state? The answer reveals the systematic self-contradiction of actually existing socialism.

Ruben’s Position from Within

Biography: From Airport Laborer to Philosopher

Peter Ruben was born in Berlin in 1933. After three years’ service in the Barracked People’s Police (1952-1955), he studied philosophy at Humboldt University Berlin. In 1958 he was expelled from the university for political reasons: he had “repeatedly opened for discussion” the Party’s and the culture’s official interpretation of the events in Poland and Hungary in 1956.[1]

Ruben had to “prove himself in production”: from 1958 to 1961 he worked as an unskilled laborer on the construction of Schönefeld Airport in Berlin. This was intended as a humiliation—but it became philosophically productive: Ruben experienced firsthand what labor means.

In 1961 he was permitted to resume his studies, graduating in 1963 (his topic: the Descartes-Leibniz dispute, “the relationship of dialectics and mechanics”). In 1969 he received his doctorate with “Mechanics and Dialectics,” and in 1976 his habilitation on “Contradiction and Natural Dialectics.”[2]

In 1975 he moved to the Central Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences, becoming deputy head of the department of Dialectical Materialism. In 1975/76 he was a visiting professor at Aarhus University (Denmark)—there he came into contact with Western “capital-logic” and theories of long economic waves (Helphand, Kondratieff, Schumpeter).[3]

The Philosophical Innovation: Labor as Central Category

Ruben’s central idea: labor (not “matter”) is the fundamental category of materialism.

Official GDR philosophy said: materialism = “primacy of matter.” The “basic question of philosophy” was: what is primary, matter or spirit? Answer: matter. Everything else follows from that.[4]

Ruben said: this is wrong. Materialism does not mean that “matter is primary,” but that human beings appropriate the world through labor. Labor is mediation between subject and object—not dualism, but process.

Science as general labor: science is not “reflection” of nature (as vulgar materialism claims), but active appropriation. Scientists produce models, theories, experiments—that is labor: the application of labor capacities to the means and objects of labor.[5]

Dialectics versus analytics: Ruben distinguished (Hegelian in spirit):

  • Analytics (mathematics, measuring science): works with abstractions. Abstraction means: equality becomes identity (given a presupposed equivalence relation). This is “understanding-abstraction” (a term from Marx!).
  • Dialectics (philosophy): works with concrete particulars. It explicates the mediations that abstraction holds still.

Example: Physics abstracts from individual differences (all electrons are identical). Dialectics asks: what does this abstraction blot out? The interaction, which is individual.[6]

This is Hegelian: Hegel shows (in the Logic, Doctrine of Being) that the abstract is the poorest (Being, Nothing), the concrete is the richest (Concept, Idea). Philosophy’s task is to sublate the abstractions of the particular sciences—not to reject them, but to mediate them.[7]

The Research Group (1977-1981)

In 1977 Ruben founded (together with the economist Hans Wagner) an interdisciplinary research group: “Philosophical and Methodological Problems of Political Economy.” Scholars from various sections and institutes of Humboldt University, the Academy of Sciences, and other institutions came together.[8]

The goal: to develop a theory of the socialist value-form. This was economically explosive: if value develops (rather than being fixed), then price formation in the GDR economy would also have to be revised.

In 1980 the article (with Hans Wagner) appeared: “Socialist Value-Form and Dialectical Contradiction.”[9] This was the trigger of the Ruben Affair.

The Ruben Affair (1980-1981)

The political context: in August 1980 the strike of the Solidarność trade union began in Poland. Polish workers revolted against their “workers’ government.” This was a nightmare for the SED: if workers understand themselves as subjects (rather than as objects of party leadership), the legitimacy of actually existing socialism is at risk.

Ruben’s philosophy of labor suddenly became politically dangerous: if labor is self-creation (as in Hegel), then workers are owners (possess owner-consciousness). But GDR workers had no owner-consciousness—otherwise they would not have fled by the millions (1949-1961) or would have defended the system in 1989.

In the winter of 1980/81 the SED set up a commission: “Commission for the Political-Ideological and Scholarly Assessment of the Publications of Dr. P. Ruben.” Driving forces: Manfred Buhr (head of “Hegel diplomacy”) and Herbert Hörz (philosopher, party functionary).[10]

The commission gathered assessments in a “green folder” (as in the heresy trial against Luther!). The verdict was predetermined: “P. Ruben abandons, on decisive questions of political relevance, the ground of Marxism-Leninism. The basic features of his theoretical considerations are revisionist. Their practical consequences run counter to the foundations of our Party’s policy.”[11]

May 1981: expulsion from the SED. Publication ban. Teaching ban. Transfer to an alibi post (he remained at the Academy, after international protests from the West, but without any function).

Camilla Warnke, Ruben’s colleague and collaborator, also received the SED expulsion (1981). She had completed her habilitation in 1980 (“Dialectics and Systems Thinking in Social Cognition”) and was on the verge of an appointment as professor. This was prevented.[12]

The irony: nine years earlier (1972), Ruben had written in the anthology On the Understanding of Hegel in Our Time—without incident. But in 1981, in the context of Solidarność, the same philosophy was persecuted as revisionism.

After 1989

In February 1990 the Scientific Council of the Central Institute of Philosophy rehabilitated Peter Ruben (through the PDS, successor party to the SED). On June 1, 1990, he was elected by the staff as the first (and only) freely elected director of the Central Institute.[13]

But it was too late: at the end of 1990 the Institute was dissolved. West German science policy had no interest in GDR philosophy. Ruben spent a few more years as a research associate at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder) (1994-1996), then retired.

Until 2010 he was president of the association “Berliner Debatte Initial.” In 2022 the four-volume edition of his works appeared (ed. Camilla Warnke & Ulrich Hedtke, Verlag am Park)—posthumously (Ruben died in 2024).[14]

Assessment in Light of Our Interpretation of Hegel

What Is Right about This? (Preservation)
  1. Labor as mediation between subject and object

Ruben’s basic idea: materialism does not mean “matter is primary,” but that labor is mediation. This is Hegelian.

Hegel shows (in the Phenomenology, chapter on master/servant): the servant labors—and through labor he forms the world. He recognizes himself in his work. This is self-creation: labor is the process through which subject and object are mediated.[15]

Marx takes this over: “Hegel grasps the self-creation of man as a process… hence the essence of labor.”[16] Labor is not external manipulation (subject changes object), but appropriation: subject and object become one (not identical, but mediated).

Ruben is right: to ground materialism in labor (rather than in “matter”) is more Hegelian—and more Marxian.

  1. Property is owner-consciousness (not attribution)

Ruben’s politically explosive thesis: property is not a legal relation (who formally possesses what?), but owner-consciousness—an active process of appropriation.

This is Hegelian: Hegel shows (in the Philosophy of Right, on property) that property means that I place my will into a thing. I am an owner when I recognize the thing as mine—not through attribution, but through activity.[17]

Applied to the GDR: workers were formally owners of the means of production (“people’s property”). But they had no owner-consciousness. Why not? Because they had no control over production. The Party decided—not the workers.

Ruben was right: property without owner-consciousness is an empty claim. GDR workers showed in 1989 that they had no owner-consciousness: they fled instead of defending the system. This confirmed Ruben’s theory—posthumously.

  1. Dialectics versus analytics

Ruben’s distinction: analytics (mathematics) stills contradictions through abstraction. Dialectics (philosophy) explicates the contradictions that abstraction has blotted out.

This is precisely Hegel’s position (in the Logic, Doctrine of Being): the abstract is the poorest, because it disregards differences. The concrete is the richest, because it contains mediations.[18]

Example (Ruben): physics abstracts from individual differences (all electrons identical). But in reality electrons are in interaction—and this interaction is individual (depends on context). Physics cannot capture this (because it abstracts), but philosophy can reflect on it.

This is methodologically fruitful: it shows what philosophy can achieve (and what it cannot). Philosophy cannot solve physical problems—but it can show the limits of physics (what the abstraction blots out).

What Inner Contradiction Emerges? (Negation)
  1. Why was a philosophy of labor persecuted in the “workers’ state”?

The irony: the GDR called itself a “workers’ state”—but persecuted a philosophy of labor.

The explanation: Ruben’s philosophy called the legitimacy of party rule into question. If labor is self-creation, then workers are subjects (not objects). Then they must decide for themselves (rather than being led by the Party).

The SED wanted no subjects, only objects: workers who produce what the Party commands. Owner-consciousness was dangerous—because it implies autonomy.

The performative contradiction: the GDR claimed the workers were owners. But it prevented owner-consciousness (through party control). Ruben took the claim at its word—and was punished for it.

This shows: the GDR was not a workers’ state, but a party state. Labor was not self-creation, but external determination.

  1. The fear of Solidarność

Ruben’s persecution (1980-81) coincided temporally with Solidarność. This is no coincidence.

Solidarność showed: workers can understand themselves as subjects. They can demand: we want to decide for ourselves! This was the SED’s nightmare: if Polish workers can do this—why not GDR workers?

Ruben’s philosophy was theoretical ammunition for such demands. So it had to be suppressed. Not because it was false, but because it was dangerous.

The lesson: theories are not neutral. In a repressive system, truth is dangerous. Ruben was persecuted because he was right—not despite it.

Where Would Our Interpretation of Hegel Go Further? (Elevation)
  1. Labor and recognition are linked

Ruben’s philosophy of labor is correct, but incomplete. What is missing: the connection to mutual recognition.

Hegel shows (master/servant): the servant labors—and thereby recognizes himself. But that is not enough. He also needs recognition by the master. Without recognition he remains unfree.

Applied to the GDR: workers produce—that is labor. But without recognition (co-determination, control, participation) their labor remains alienated.

Ruben implicitly knew this (hence his critique of party rule), but did not work it out systematically. Our interpretation of Hegel would say: labor without recognition remains incomplete.

  1. Owner-consciousness requires structures

Ruben showed: GDR workers had no owner-consciousness (proven in 1989).

Our addition: owner-consciousness does not arise spontaneously, but through structures: works councils, self-administration, democracy within enterprises. Without these structures, “people’s property” remains a fiction.

Hegel calls this institutions: freedom needs institutional safeguarding (laws, separation of powers, a public sphere). Without institutions, freedom remains an idea, not a reality.[19]

Applied: democratic socialism requires structures of self-administration. Not merely formal (“people’s property”), but real (workers genuinely deciding). Without these structures, socialism is a lie.

Systematic Significance

Peter Ruben embodies the greatest irony of GDR philosophy: in the “workers’ state,” a philosophy of labor was persecuted—because it called the legitimacy of party rule into question.

The lesson (in light of our interpretation of Hegel):

  1. Property is owner-consciousness (not attribution). Without control, no consciousness. Without consciousness, no responsibility. Without responsibility, no property.

  2. Labor is self-creation (not external determination). Whoever takes labor seriously must concede autonomy. A “workers’ state” that prevents autonomy is no workers’ state.

  3. Philosophy is dangerous (when it is true). Ruben was persecuted not because he was wrong, but because he was right. Truth threatens power—when power rests on lies.

Ruben’s lasting merit: he showed what socialism could be (if it were Hegelian): self-administration by workers as owners. That the GDR was not this proves that it was not socialist—but bureaucratic-despotic.

  1. Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal of the SED Dictatorship, Biographical Database, “Peter Ruben.” ↩︎

  2. Peter Ruben, Mechanik und Dialektik. Eine wissenschaftstheoretisch-philosophische Studie zum physikalischen Verhalten, dissertation, HU Berlin 1969. ↩︎

  3. Cf. the collected works: Camilla Warnke & Ulrich Hedtke (eds.), Peter Ruben: Gesammelte philosophische Schriften, 4 vols., Berlin: Verlag am Park, 2022. ↩︎

  4. Cf. the standard account: Rugard Otto Gropp, Grundlagen des dialektischen Materialismus, Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1970. ↩︎

  5. Peter Ruben, Philosophie und Mathematik, Leipzig 1979, pp. 15–30. ↩︎

  6. Peter Ruben, “Von der ‘Wissenschaft der Logik’ und dem Verhältnis der Dialektik zur Logik,” in: Hermann Ley (ed.), Zum Hegelverständnis unserer Zeit, Berlin 1972, pp. 235–260. ↩︎

  7. Hegel, Science of Logic I, TWA 5, pp. 82–83 (being as the most abstract). ↩︎

  8. Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal of the SED Dictatorship, Biographical Database, “Peter Ruben.” ↩︎

  9. Peter Ruben & Hans Wagner, “Sozialistische Wertform und dialektischer Widerspruch,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 28 (1980), issue 11, pp. 1335–1347. ↩︎

  10. Cf. the documentation: Hans-Christoph Rauh (ed.), Gefesselter Widerspruch. Die Affäre um Peter Ruben, Berlin 1991. ↩︎

  11. Quoted in: peter-ruben.de, “Edition.” ↩︎

  12. Camilla Warnke, Wikipedia; Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal of the SED Dictatorship. ↩︎

  13. Peter Ruben, Wikipedia. ↩︎

  14. Camilla Warnke & Ulrich Hedtke (eds.), Peter Ruben: Gesammelte philosophische Schriften, 4 vols., Berlin: Verlag am Park, 2022. ↩︎

  15. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, TWA 3, p. 153 (Lord and Bondsman). ↩︎

  16. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, MEW Supplementary Volume I, p. 574. ↩︎

  17. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, TWA 7, §41–71 (property). ↩︎

  18. Hegel, Science of Logic I, TWA 5, pp. 82–83. ↩︎

  19. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, TWA 7, §257–271 (the state). ↩︎