Introduction: The far right and the crisis of world capitalism
Across Europe and Britain, the far right is gaining
strength. This isn't a fleeting anomaly or the work of individual demagogues;
it reflects a deepening crisis in global capitalism. Years of austerity,
stagnant wages, failing public services, and a cost-of-living crisis have
pushed millions into desperation. Privatisation, deregulation, and the
systematic dismantling of welfare systems have torn the social fabric. Workers
face rising rents, unaffordable energy bills, and collapsing essential
services, even as corporations post record profits and governments claim there
is “no money” for social needs.
Simultaneously, all major imperialist nations are rearming
and gearing up for conflict. Countries like the U.S., Britain, Germany, France,
and Japan are involved in a worldwide race for markets, resources, and
strategic control. The tensions between NATO and Russia, increased militarisation
in the Indo-Pacific, and the rise of proxy wars signal a new phase in the
disintegration of the post-Cold War global order. The ruling class is preparing
for conflicts that could surpass the tragedies of the last century. Militarism
is not an anomaly but a natural outcome of ongoing capitalist crises.
The ruling class offers no progressive solutions to the
crisis. Reversing austerity, increasing wages, or ending militarism would
require actions contrary to profit interests. Instead, they turn to reactionary
measures. The far right is cultivated as a political tool to shift social anger
away from capitalism and onto migrants, minorities, and the impoverished. This
pattern of capitalist failure shows that, during crises, the ruling class tends
to adopt authoritarian solutions. Fascist movements are not spontaneous acts of
hate but are intentionally shaped and promoted by parts of the state, media,
and corporate elite.
In this context, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) has
rediscovered the Weimar Republic. Socialist Workers warns that “history
is repeating itself,” that fascism is again at the gates, and that only a broad
coalition of Labour MPs, union leaders, clergy, and “celebrities” can stop it. Invoking
Weimar is not an attempt to clarify the present crisis but to obscure it. The
SWP’s historical analogy is politically motivated: it seeks to channel growing
anger behind the Labour Party and the trade‑union bureaucracy under the banner
of Stand Up To Racism (SUTR).
The SWP’s story is straightforward: fascism is the biggest
threat, Labour is the lesser threat, and criticising the party or unions
“divides the movement.” Workers are urged to prioritise their struggles over
political institutions. This approach was what hampered the German working
class in the early 1930s, as the SPD claimed the capitalist state would prevent
fascism, rejected revolutionary efforts, and called for allegiance to bourgeois
democracy. Ultimately, this led to disaster.
The SWP reuses this approach with a new appearance. It
portrays Labour politicians who have adopted anti-immigrant rhetoric,
implemented austerity, and supported imperialist wars as defenders of
democracy. It also highlights union leaders who have often undermined strikes
and enforced deals below inflation as advocates of anti-racism. Additionally,
it advocates for a cross-class alliance that places workers under the influence
of the same forces that create the social conditions enabling the far right to
flourish.
This is not a lesson from Weimar; in fact, it is quite the
opposite. The true lesson of the 1930s is that defeating fascism requires the working
class to act independently, based on a socialist and internationalist agenda.
This cannot be achieved through alliances with the political establishment but
must come from breaking away from it.
The historical Weimar Republic: A deeper
historiographical analysis
To grasp the current crisis, it is essential to explore what
transpired in Germany from 1918 to 1933. The Weimar Republic did not emerge as
a stable democracy; it resulted from a revolutionary upheaval that destabilised
German society. In November 1918, after four years of brutal war, the German
working class and soldiers revolted against the Kaiser and the military
leadership. Mutinies in the navy quickly spread to industrial cities. Workers’
and soldiers’ councils arose nationwide, mirroring the soviets of the Russian
Revolution. The old imperial regime collapsed almost instantly. Germany was on
the verge of socialism.
For a short period, the working class held the lead, with
councils managing factories, garrisons, and local governments. The monarchy was
dismantled, and Germany had the chance to follow the Bolsheviks' example in
1917. However, the revolution was compromised from within.
The Social Democratic Party (SPD), which supported the war
in 1914 and was a key part of the imperial state, quickly moved to quash the
revolutionary movement. Friedrich Ebert, the SPD leader, feared the working
class more than the remnants of the Kaiser’s regime. In November 1918, he
secretly negotiated the Ebert-Groener Pact with General Wilhelm Groener, where
the army agreed to protect the new government from workers’ councils, and the
SPD committed to maintaining the capitalist system. This pact ensured the old
military and bureaucratic elites remained in power and effectively suppressed
the revolution.
The SPD relied on the Freikorps, right-wing paramilitary
groups made up mainly of demobilised soldiers, to suppress revolutionary
uprisings. In January 1919, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the
Spartacus League and key figures in the revolution, were targeted and murdered
by Freikorps officers operating under SPD orders. Their killing was a strategic
political move, aimed at removing revolutionary leadership and restoring
bourgeois stability.
This fundamental crime shaped Weimar's history. The SPD
emerged as the main supporter of bourgeois dominance, defending the capitalist
state, military, judiciary, and police institutions still largely opposed to
democracy and sympathetic to the far right. The republic rested on a delicate
compromise: the working class received limited political rights, while the
bourgeoisie kept its economic and institutional power intact.
The Weimar Republic faced significant structural weaknesses.
Historians like Detlev Peukert, Hans Mommsen, and Richard J. Evans have
highlighted that the military remained unreformed, monarchists dominated the
judiciary, and industrialists continued to hold substantial influence over
economic policy. The SPD aimed to keep the working class within bourgeois
democratic boundaries and prevent challenges to capitalist property rights.
The SPD and the suppression of the German Revolution
The Social Democratic Party (SPD), which supported World War
I in 1914, quickly acted to suppress revolutionary efforts. Friedrich Ebert,
the SPD leader, was more concerned about the working class than the imperial
remnants. In November 1918, he secretly negotiated the Ebert-Groener Pact with
General Wilhelm Groener, where the army promised to protect the new government
from worker councils, and the SPD committed to maintaining the capitalist
system.
This alliance influenced the entire Weimar era. The SPD
relied on the Freikorps, right-wing paramilitary groups made up mainly of
demobilised soldiers, to suppress revolutionary uprisings. In January 1919,
Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the Spartacus League and icons
of the revolutionary movement, were killed by Freikorps officers acting under
SPD orders. Their assassination was a targeted political move, aiming to
eliminate the revolutionary leadership and reestablish bourgeois stability.
This fundamental crime influenced Weimar's entire history.
The SPD emerged as the main supporter of bourgeois dominance. It upheld the
capitalist state, the military, the judiciary, and law enforcement all
institutions still resistant to democracy and aligned with the far right. The
republic rested on a delicate balance: the working class received limited
political rights, but the bourgeoisie's economic and institutional strength
remained unchanged.
Structural weaknesses of the Weimar Republic
Historians have highlighted the Weimar Republic's structural
weaknesses. The republic's foundations were shaky, with an unreformed army led
by monarchists and a judiciary dominated by nationalists who often gave lenient
sentences to right-wing extremists while targeting left-wing militants.
Industrialists held significant sway over economic policies, actively working
to weaken democratic institutions.
The SPD’s role was to contain the working class within the
framework of bourgeois democracy. It suppressed strikes, defended private
property, and insisted that any challenge to capitalism would “endanger the
republic.” In reality, the republic was endangered precisely because capitalism
remained intact.
The 1929 Great Depression disrupted this delicate balance.
Industrial output nearly halved, and unemployment rose to six million. The
parliamentary system collapsed under the strain. Starting in 1930, Germany was
governed by a presidential, increasingly authoritarian approach that sidelined
the Reichstag and paved the way for Hitler’s appointment.
The rise of the Nazis
The Nazis' rise wasn't simply due to “hate,” “rhetoric,” or
Hitler's charisma, as often highlighted in liberal narratives. Instead, these
explanations overlook the deeper social and political dynamics that enabled
fascism’s ascent. The real cause was the collapse of the capitalist system,
which pushed the ruling class to support a movement designed to suppress the
working class. Fascism was a deliberate political tool of the bourgeoisie,
emerging directly from a period of severe crisis, rather than an irrational
outburst.
By 1930, the Weimar Republic was collapsing under the weight
of the Great Depression. Industrial output nearly halved, and unemployment
reached six million. Working-class areas suffered from hunger, homelessness,
and despair. The parliamentary system disintegrated as governments increasingly
governed by presidential decree, sidestepping the Reichstag and weakening
democratic standards. The ruling elite feared the crisis could radicalise
workers and rekindle the revolutionary spirit of 1918–19.
In this context, the Nazis rose as a powerful force,
supported by top industrialists like Fritz Thyssen and Ruhr magnates who aimed
to suppress the labour movement and restore profits. The judiciary turned a
blind eye to Nazi violence, penalising fascist thugs with easy sentences while
targeting Communists and left-wing activists. The army viewed the Nazis as
potential allies against Marxism. Ultimately, President Paul von Hindenburg, a
reactionary aristocrat backed by the SPD as the “lesser evil," appointed
Hitler as chancellor on January 30, 1933. The key factor that enabled this
disaster was the working class's political paralysis, caused by its own
leadership.
The Social Democratic Party (SPD), having betrayed the
1918–19 revolution, dedicated the Weimar era to defending the bourgeois state.
It argued that institutions like the courts, police, and army patrols filled
with monarchists and nationalists would safeguard democracy. The party
condemned revolutionary movements as “extremism,” suppressed strikes, and
endorsed austerity policies that harmed workers. In 1932, it supported
Hindenburg's bid for president, claiming he could stop Hitler. However, Hindenburg
was actually laying the groundwork for Hitler’s rise to power.
On the opposite side was the Communist Party (KPD), which,
under Stalinist influence, followed the harmful “Third Period' policy of the
Comintern. The KPD labelled social democracy as “social fascism,” equating it
with Nazism. They condemned SPD workers as adversaries, rejected any form of
united front, and believed that a Nazi win would 'speed up the revolution.”
This sectarian approach fractured the working class just when unity mattered
most.
Leon Trotsky, writing from exile, repeatedly warned that the
SPD and KPD were steering the working class toward catastrophe. He emphasised
that only a united front where workers’ organisations collaborated against
fascism and criticised openly could prevent Hitler’s rise. His warnings went
unheeded. The SPD persisted with bourgeois legality, while the KPD adhered to
Stalinist dogma. This dynamic left the working class paralysed between these
two poles.
The tragedy of Weimar was not due to a weak proletariat. In
fact, the German working class was among the most powerful and well organised
in Europe, with millions in trade unions, mass parties, and cultural groups. It
proved its revolutionary potential in 1918–19 and again in 1923. However, what
it lacked was strong revolutionary leadership to unify its efforts and steer
them toward overthrowing capitalism.
The SPD’s “lesser evil” strategy and the defence of
bourgeois democracy
During the Weimar era, the SPD's strategy focused on
defending bourgeois democracy against the far right. It believed that the
capitalist state, such as the courts, police, and military, would contain
fascism. The party rejected any pursuit of socialism, labelling revolutionary
efforts as “extremism,” and viewed the working class not as agents of societal
change but as a threat to “stability.” This outlook stemmed from the SPD’s
betrayal of the 1918–19 revolution, turning it into the main defender of the
capitalist system.
During the 1920s, the SPD formed coalition governments with
bourgeois parties, claiming these alliances were essential to “defend
democracy.' In reality, however, they prioritised protecting German capitalist
interests. The SPD-led administrations carried out austerity measures,
suppressed strikes, and maintained the power of the army and judiciary,
institutions still largely controlled by monarchists and nationalists. Their
primary goal was to prevent any independent mobilisation of the working class
that could jeopardise capitalist property rights.
When the Great Depression began in 1929, the SPD’s stance
grew more reactionary. Chancellor Heinrich Brüning, ruling by presidential
decree, implemented harsh cuts to wages, social benefits, and public
expenditure. Instead of rallying workers against these measures, the SPD backed
Brüning’s decrees, claiming that opposition could threaten the republic. In
truth, the republic was already faltering under the strain of the capitalist
crisis, and the SPD’s support for austerity worsened millions of people's
suffering.
In 1932, the SPD’s “lesser evil” strategy culminated as they
supported Paul von Hindenburg for president, opposing Hitler. Hindenburg, an aristocratic
reactionary who disliked democracy and favoured restoring authoritarian rule,
was urged by the SPD to vote for him to “stop fascism.” Shortly after,
Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor.
This was no accident. It resulted logically from the SPD’s
approach: defending bourgeois democracy at all costs, even if it meant
empowering those who would eventually destroy it. By aligning the working class
with the capitalist state, the SPD caused political paralysis among workers
during crucial moments. Trotsky summarised the SPD’s impact when he stated:
“The policy of the Social Democracy is the chief obstacle in the path of the
German proletariat.” What Next? Vital
Questions for the German Proletariat (1932). The SPD’s tactic of viewing the
lesser evil ultimately led to disaster.
If the SPD limited the working class's actions from the
right, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) did so from the left. Led by
Stalin, the KPD followed the Comintern’s “Third Period” doctrine, claiming
social democracy was “social fascism" essentially the same as Nazism. This
approach was not just wrong; it proved disastrous.
The KPD labelled SPD workers as fascists and refused to
collaborate with them. It organised separate unions, protests, and electoral
efforts, viewing the SPD as the main enemy, not the Nazis. In some cases, KPD
members even tactically cooperated with Nazi forces against the SPD, believing
that a Nazi victory would 'speed up the revolution.' This sectarian approach
tore the working class apart when unity was most needed. The KPD’s stance of
not cooperating with SPD workers, while still allowing criticism, left the
working class divided and confused in the face of fascism.
The SWP’s misuse of Weimar: Popular front politics in new
clothes
The SWP claims to oppose Trotsky’s ideas but actually
practices what he warned against. Stand Up To Racism (SUTR) is not a unified
front; it's a broad alliance across classes, where the interests of workers are
often subordinate to sections of the political establishment. While the SWP
uses radical language, its underlying strategy mirrors that of the SPD in
Weimar Germany, promoting the “lesser evil" by defending bourgeois
democracy and aligning workers with forces responsible for its decline. SUTR’s
platform includes Labour MPs whose government has ramped up attacks on migrants
and asylum seekers, adopted anti-immigrant rhetoric to outflank the far right,
enforced austerity and wage cuts, and supported NATO’s military interventions
abroad.
These policies are not accidental; they are central to
Labour’s identity as a party that supports British imperialism. However, SUTR
portrays these politicians as defenders of democracy and opponents of racism.
The SWP claims that workers should join a “broad movement" with them
against the far right. Similarly, union leaders are presented as champions of
anti-racism, despite their repeated actions to sabotage strikes, impose deals
below inflation, and suppress rank-and-file dissent. Their main role has been
to limit and demobilise workers’ struggles rather than combat racism or
fascism. Nonetheless, SUTR considers them essential allies, fostering the false
impression that the union bureaucracy truly represents the working class.
The SWP clearly states that if the far right is considered
the main threat, workers should avoid criticising Labour, challenging union
leaders, or pushing for an independent political agenda. Instead, they should
support any establishment figure condemning racism. This mirrors the SPD’s
“lesser evil” approach, updated for today. The SPD argued that workers had to
defend bourgeois democracy by backing “progressive” bourgeois politicians. This
led to political paralysis among workers and ultimately facilitated Hitler's
rise.
The SWP still uses this approach today. It insists
that workers should subordinate their struggles to Labour and the unions, even
though these institutions are directly accountable for the social conditions
that enable the far right to flourish. This tactic politically disarms the
working class precisely when an independent response is most desperately
needed.
The far right's growth isn't due to a lack of anti-racist
slogans but because it can position itself as opposing a political
establishment that has caused only misery. The SWP’s populist strategies hide
this truth. Each time a Labour government reduces public services and funds
wars abroad, it gives the far right an advantage. Labour’s adoption of
anti-immigrant language also boosts the far right’s story. When Labour blames
migrants for social breakdown, it creates a political space that benefits
fascist movements.
Each time union leaders cancel strikes, endorse betrayals,
or suppress worker dissent, the far right expands influence. Workers recognise
that the official labour movement fails to address their hardships. The union
bureaucracy’s cooperation with employers and the government opens a space for
reactionary forces to position themselves as “anti-establishment.”
By portraying Labour and the union bureaucracy as allies in
the fight against fascism, the SWP hides their own role in creating the
conditions where the far right flourishes. It directs opposition into a
dead-end that initially caused the crisis. Instead of holding Labour and the
unions accountable as tools of capitalist power, it protects them from critique
and urges loyalty to their leadership. This leads to political paralysis.
Workers are told that breaking away from Labour or the unions “divides the movement”
and benefits the far right. In truth, workers' submission to these institutions
allows the far right to expand.
Lessons of Weimar for today
The lesson from Weimar is not that workers should unite with
“progressive” bourgeois forces. Instead, fascism can be overcome only through
the working class's independent political mobilisation around an international
socialist agenda. Workers must definitively abandon Labour and the
pro-capitalist trade unions, as these organisations are incapable of reform and
serve as tools of the capitalist state.
Workers should establish rank-and-file committees at every
workplace, independent of union bureaucrats, to coordinate struggles across
industries and borders. The fight against fascism is a global effort. Workers
in Britain must unite with their comrades across Europe and the world, no
matter their nationality, religion, or immigration status. Above all, the
working class requires revolutionary leadership. The tragedy in Germany was not
the lack of a combative working class but the absence of a party capable of
leading it.
The Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee
of the Fourth International (ICFI) embody the ongoing tradition of Marxism.
They are the only groups that truly understand the lessons of Weimar: fascism
emerges from capitalist crises, the working class must maintain political
independence, and only a revolutionary party can lead the fight for socialism.
The SWP’s concern about Weimar is not a call to action but a surrender. The
true battle against fascism starts with building the SEP and the ICFI.
Primary Sources:
Trotsky’s Writings on Germany and Fascism
Trotsky, Leon. What Next? Vital Questions for the German
Proletariat. 1932. Trotsky, Leon. The Only Road. 1932. Trotsky,
Leon. For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism. 1931. Trotsky, Leon. The
Struggle Against Fascism in Germany. Pathfinder Press edition. Trotsky,
Leon. The Third International After Lenin. 1928. Trotsky, Leon. The
German Revolution and the Bureaucracy.
Secondary Sources: Weimar Republic, SPD, KPD, and the Rise
of Nazism
Broué, Pierre. The German Revolution, 1917–1923.
Brill, 2005. Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin,
2003. Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich in Power. Penguin, 2005.
Peukert, Detlev. The Weimar Republic: The Crisis of Classical Modernity.
Hill and Wang, 1992. Mommsen, Hans. The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy.
UNC Press, 1996. Kolb, Eberhard. The Weimar Republic. Routledge, 2004.
Fischer, Conan. The Rise of National Socialism and the Working Classes.
Berg, 1995. Weber, Hermann. The Rise and Fall of the Communist Party of
Germany. Pluto Press, 2017. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: Hubris (1998) and Hitler:
Nemesis (2000). Bessel, Richard. Political Violence and the Rise of
Nazism. Yale University Press, 1984. Carsten, F. L. The Rise of Fascism.
University of California Press, 1967. Haffner, Sebastian. Failure of a
Revolution: Germany 1918–1919. Winkler, Heinrich August. Weimar
1918–1933: The Illusion of Normalcy. Oxford University Press.
These works provide the historical foundation for this
article.
North, David. The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the
Politics of the Pseudo‑Left. Mehring Books. North, David. The Russian
Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century. Mehring Books. David Walsh,
Chris Marsden. Articles on Labour, the unions, and pseudo‑left politics (WSWS).
Barry Grey, Thomas Scripps. WSWS coverage of British politics, Labour, and the
trade‑union bureaucracy. International Committee of the Fourth International
(ICFI). WSWS analyses on fascism, imperialism, and the crisis of capitalism.
Supplementary Sources (Use Critically)
Harman, Chris. The Lost Revolution: Germany 1918–1923.
Bookmarks. Cliff, Tony. Trotsky: Fighting the Rising Stalinist Bureaucracy.
Bookmarks.
