Katja Hoyer’s column in The Washington Post, warning that comparing Trump to Hitler is "bad politics,” is not just a neutral academic opinion. It is a deliberate political act by a main ideological tool of the American ruling class. The core message—calm down, stop panicking, trust the institutions—aims to serve a specific class interest: to lull the population into complacency during escalating political unrest and to steer mass opposition away from independent working-class political action.
The Post falsely presents itself as a strict guardian of
historical accuracy. However, it is “a
central organ of the Democratic Party and the intelligence agencies,” whose
role is to redirect public anger into the controlled space of the Democratic
Party. The true purpose of the column isn’t to correct misconceptions about
history but to pacify the public. The Post is telling its readers: “calm down,
things aren’t that bad, stop making hysterical comparisons.” This isn’t
scholarship; it’s political soothing.
I. Liberal Historical Revisionism as a Weapon of Class
Rule
A desire for historical accuracy doesn't drive the liberal
establishment’s quick rejection of Weimar comparisons. For years, these same
groups frequently used Hitler and fascism as references whenever it benefited
their foreign policy aims. However, when such an analogy highlights the deep
problems within American capitalism—specifically, by pointing to the corruption
of the American ruling class rather than a foreign dictator—it is dismissed as
“hysterical,” “irresponsible,” and a poor political strategy.
The question isn't whether crude analogies exist; they do.
However, the Post’s intervention aims to hide the true lessons of Weimar: the
class struggles that led to fascism and the political betrayals that
facilitated it. The liberal narrative claims that fascism arises from
'institutional failure,' 'fragile democracy,' or 'eroding norms.' This
viewpoint is a middle-class fairy tale. In reality, fascism stems from a ruling
class facing an insoluble capitalist crisis, which pushes them to authoritarian
measures to protect their wealth and power.
The German edition of David North’s Where Is America
Going? makes this point with clarity: Trump is not an invader of a healthy
democracy but “the political embodiment of a degenerated, bestial ruling class
that expresses the historical crisis of the capitalist system.” This is the
truth the Post cannot allow to surface.
II. The Marxist Analysis: What Is and Is Not Fascism
Today
As David North pointed out in a key interview on fascism and
history, Trump’s movement “smells of fascism”—it has “that particular odour,
or, I might say, stink”—but it isn't yet a widespread fascist movement in the
traditional sense. The petty-bourgeois mobs of 1933 are not present in the
United States in a similar form.[1]
However, the lack of a perfect analogy does not imply that the
danger is imaginary. Studying Weimar aims not for an exact comparison but to
grasp the patterns of capitalist crises: the ruling class’s shift toward
authoritarianism, the promotion of far-right groups, the intensification of
nationalism, and the buildup to war.
These trends are clearly evident. The US faces rising
international conflicts, its political systems are breaking down, and the
ruling class depends more on the military, intelligence, and courts to stay in
power. Meanwhile, the working class is shifting left, as North observed—exactly
the kind of change that historically pushes the bourgeoisie toward fascist
measures. The Post’s advice—“don’t panic”—is not about avoiding fear but about
cautioning against rushing into action.
III. The Lesson Liberals Fear Most: The Betrayal of the
Working Class
The key lesson from Weimar, which the liberal establishment
desperately tries to conceal, is not about the weakness of democratic
institutions but about how the working class was betrayed by its own organisations.
“Hitler gained power not due to flaws in Weimar’s constitution, but because the
Social Democratic Party and the Stalinist Communist Party failed to unite
against fascism.”
The SPD defended the bourgeois state, suppressed workers’
uprisings, and collaborated with the military and police. During Stalin’s
harmful “Third Period” policy, the KPD labelled the SPD as “social fascists,”
equating them with the Nazis and splitting the working class at a crucial time.
This serves as a lesson the Post refuses to learn, as it exposes the failure of
the Democratic Party’s current approach. Today, the Democrats and their
pseudo-left allies—such as DSA and Jacobin—urge the working class to submit to
the Democratic Party, the CIA, and the national security forces in a “popular
front” against Trump. This is not a tactic to defeat fascism; it is the very
strategy that enabled fascism.
Trotsky’s writings from 1931–33—' For a Workers’ United
Front Against Fascism' and 'The United Front for Defence'—continue to serve as
essential guides. Trotsky emphasised that workers should unite in action
against fascist violence while remaining politically independent from reformist
leaders. The Stalinist rejection of this approach led to disastrous
consequences. Today's refusal by the Democrats is equally perilous.
IV. The Political Function of “Don’t Panic” History
Hoyer’s column clearly plays
an ideological role. It reassures readers that their concerns are exaggerated,
claiming that institutions will stay stable. The Weimar comparison is dismissed
as “bad politics." It promotes trust in the courts, upcoming elections,
and the Democratic Party. Most importantly, it recommends doing nothing.
This mirrors the Democrats’
real political strategy: a passive dependence on state institutions, legal
tactics, and electoral processes, combined with strong opposition to any
independent working-class mobilisation. The true ‘bad politics’ isn’t the
historical analogy. Still, the systematic effort… to disarm the population,
persuade them their eyes deceive them, and redirect legitimate fear and anger
into the dead-end of the Democratic Party. The working class does not need
reassurance. It needs revolutionary leadership.
V. The Real Lesson of Weimar: Independent Working‑Class Mobilisation
The United States faces a crisis not of “norms” or
"institutions," but of capitalism itself. The question posed by the
title "Where is America Going? Fascism or Socialism" is genuine and
not rhetorical. Its answer isn't found within the Democratic Party, the courts,
or the mythologised “guardrails” of American democracy. The sole force that can
prevent the slide toward authoritarianism and conflict is the independent,
international mobilisation of the working class, guided by a socialist program.
The Liberal Misuse of Weimar: A Historiographical
Critique
Liberal scholarship on the Weimar Republic has long served
as an ideological mirror reflecting the anxieties of the contemporary
bourgeoisie. Unsurprisingly, during times of crisis, liberal historians tend to
isolate Weimar not to shed light on the present but to obscure it. The latest
wave of commentary—like Katja Hoyer’s column in The Washington Post—represents
just the most recent phase in a longstanding historiographical effort: turning
Weimar into a morality tale about “fragile democracy,” “institutional failure,”
and the risks of “polarisation,” while actively ignoring the class struggles
and political betrayals that paved the way for fascism.
This critique examines the dominant liberal interpretations
of Weimar, their political function, and how they distort the historical record
to serve the needs of the contemporary ruling class.
I. The Liberal Narrative: Weimar as a Parable of
Institutional Fragility
The common liberal view of Weimar simplifies the republic's
fall to a series of institutional issues: a flawed constitution, too much
presidential power, proportional representation, fragile parties, and a lack of
a truly “democratic' political culture. This explanation has been repeated so
often that it has become the accepted orthodoxy. Its main points are: the
Weimar Republic failed due to weak institutions; the German populace lacked a
democratic spirit; and extremism from both ends contributed to its collapse.
The takeaway is to protect the current liberal system at all costs.
This framework is politically convenient because it absolves
the ruling class from responsibility for the capitalist crisis that led to
fascism. It portrays Hitler's rise as a technical failure rather than a result
of class-driven resistance. Additionally, it enables modern liberals to see
themselves as heroes defending "democracy” from irrational threats.
However, this perspective is historically inaccurate.
II. The Suppression of Class: Liberal Historiography’s
Foundational Evasion
The core fact of Weimar history is that fascism arose in
response to a deep crisis in German capitalism. The ruling class, frightened by
the revolutionary rise of the working class, used Hitler as a tool for
counterrevolution. This is not just an interpretation; it is a documented fact.
Liberal scholars frequently overlook this reality. The
crisis is depoliticised, viewed just as a vague “loss of faith in democracy,” a
“breakdown of consensus,” or a “failure of moderation.” The class struggle is
often neglected, portraying the working class as passive and the bourgeoisie as
an abstract entity. Political parties such as the SPD and KPD are labelled as
polarising forces rather than recognised as actors with defined class
strategies.
This deliberate
avoidance aligns with current political priorities. To understand Weimar's
class dynamics, one must also recognise similar class struggles in today's
capitalism and see that the crisis of liberal democracy—marked by rising
inequality, militarism, and authoritarianism—is rooted in the inherent
contradictions of the capitalist system, not just polarisation. Liberal
historiography, however, cannot acknowledge this, which prevents it from
telling the full truth about Weimar.
III. The SPD and the KPD: Liberalism’s Most Dangerous
Silence
The most politically provocative lesson of Weimar history is
the part played by the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Stalinized
Communist Party (KPD) in disarming the working class. “Hitler came to power not
because Weimar’s constitution was flawed, but because the Social Democratic
Party and the Stalinist Communist Party refused to unite against fascism.” This
is the historical truth that liberal scholarship is most eager to conceal.
1. The SPD’s role
The SPD: defended the
bourgeois state, suppressed revolutionary workers, collaborated with the
military and police, and ultimately supported Hitler's appointment. However, in
liberal historiography, the SPD is portrayed as a tragic defender of democracy—an
honourable but doomed force overwhelmed by irrational extremism. This portrayal
is a gross misrepresentation.
2. The KPD’s role
The Stalin-era KPD’s labelling of the SPD as 'social
fascism'—equating it with the Nazis—was a harmful betrayal. Yet liberal
historians rarely analyse this from a class perspective. Instead, they tend to
see it as "extremism on both sides,” which maintains the misleading idea
of equivalence that reinforces their broader narrative.
3. Why this silence matters
Acknowledging the SPD’s betrayal would reveal the failure of
current liberal strategies, which urge the working class to submit to the
Democratic Party, intelligence agencies, and the national security state in a
“popular front” against the far right. Liberal historians try to prevent this
comparison and, as a result, suppress the truth.
IV. The Myth of the “Strongman”: Liberalism’s
Psychological Reductionism
A key feature of liberal
Weimar scholarship is its focus on the psychology of authoritarian leaders.
Hitler is portrayed as a charismatic demagogue who deceived a naive populace. The
dictator's personality overshadows the broader economic crisis of capitalism.
This perspective has two main aims: it personalises fascism, framing it as a
pathology in one individual; and it reassures liberals that authoritarianism
can be overcome through “better leadership,” “civic education,” or “restoring
norms.”
Contemporary liberal commentators often focus on Trump’s
personality, rhetoric, and “authoritarian style,” while overlooking the social
forces that support him. This psychological reductionism, similar to Weimar
historiography, transforms into a political strategy: it depoliticises the
crisis, personalises the threat, and sidesteps any challenge to the capitalist
system.
V. The Weaponisation of Weimar: Liberalism’s Present‑Day
Agenda
Liberal invocations of Weimar are not academic exercises.
They serve a political function.
1. To defend the existing order
By depicting Weimar as a delicate experiment shattered by
extremism, liberals portray the current capitalist system as the sole defence
against authoritarianism. The underlying message is straightforward: any
opposition to the system—particularly from the left—is considered a threat.
2. To delegitimise working-class struggle
Strikes, protests, and socialist movements are depicted as
indicators of “polarisation” and “instability.” The working class is viewed as
a threat to democracy rather than its supporter.
3. To justify alliances with the state and the right
Similarly, the SPD justified working with the military and
police by claiming it was protecting democracy, while liberals now defend
alliances with the CIA, FBI, and Pentagon as essential to curb the far right.
4. To suppress the real lessons of history
The core lesson of Weimar—that the working class needs to
stay politically independent and struggle for socialism—is exactly what liberal
historiography tries to erase.
VI. Toward a Marxist Historiography of Weimar
A Marxist analysis unveils
what liberal scholarship often overlooks: the importance of class struggle, the
capitalist crisis as the root of fascism, the roles of the SPD and KPD leaders
in disarming workers, the need for an independent socialist movement, and the
global nature of the crisis. This approach is not outdated; it is the only
framework that truly comprehends the present. The working class requires
revolutionary leadership, not reassurance. That is the essential lesson of
Weimar. This forms the basis of a genuinely historical, political, and
emancipatory understanding of the past.
[1] An
interview with David North on fascism, Trump and the lessons of history-www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/04/17/ttml-a17.html
