How Modernity LED to Downfall of Weimar Republic

The Crisis of Modernity: A Historical Overview

The first discourse of the crisis of modernity emerged in the nineteenth century, as a response to the growing social, political, and financial issues arising from the Industrial and French Revolutions (Smith, 2005). The formation of the Weimar Republic contributed to the original discourse, a clash between progressives and regressives resistant to the technological and social advancements in society. Regressives, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, argue that industrialization and its modernization of societies destroy the chance of a working democracy and usher in a new world of cultural change. In contrast, progressive thinkers like Auguste Comte believed that industrialization was more of a pawn in the modernization of society, where industrialization in this case promoted sociality, with issues that would either unite or divide people being settled in a more democratic, egalitarian way. What was problematic, as theorized by Comte, was politics and dialogue. Politics and dialogue were based on outdated foundations, foundations that were irrelevant as, to him, it had become clear that all realities operated by the same Newtonian principles: “The only danger to be feared, the only needful precaution,” he explains, “is that of not allowing ourselves to be turned aside from the end by the intrigues of ambitious men, who dispute among themselves the falling remnants of the ancient system” (Comte, 1830).

How Modernity Led to the Downfall of the Weimar Republic

As a precaution, technological advancement should be guided through the state's virtue if democracy was to benefit the citizen. This emphasis on democratic culture was seen as the promise of modernity and the only way for a society not to succumb to an oppressive one (Jones, 2012). In the context of the Weimar Republic, the second discourse regarding modernity is useful in examining its downfall. This second discourse revolved around financial crises and Keynesian welfare states that arose as a response to these crises. The rise of National Socialism and the consolidation of power could not have happened if it were not for the delicate political culture that formed prior to the events of World War II (Evans, 2003).

A key factor in this dissolution was the growing challenge of the elite class. Once traditionally responsible for the functions of the state, the newly formed republic took over many of these functions, such as being high-ranking civil servants and armed force members, employers, and large landowners and agrarians. Together, they were a probable threat to the republic. The judiciary system is a great example of highlighting the divide between the elites and the republic. The passing of verdicts regarding politically motivated crimes demonstrated that they viewed these types of crimes as merely “patriotic” actions, if anything, and such actions merited only minor punishments, while those who committed crimes on the left side were awarded much harsher verdicts. Quite often, trials against right-wing motivated attacks were thrown out or suppressed. Local and federal governments did try to rectify these gross abuses of power; however, there was not much progress made until much later when younger, more liberal judges were brought in. Similarly, these changes came about in the aforementioned areas. Such is a common occurrence in history; the public sector was subject to swings between political affiliations and expansions into new functions of social policy. As long as workers in the public and judicial areas obliged by their day-to-day duties while privately being dissatisfied or content with the regime (Weitz, 1997).

The Weimar era forms into two distinct periods. On the one hand, the period of crises that occurred following World War I and the succession of exciting events that define this period, the violent and immense changes to society and culture were not merely a supplement to this era but rather its essence. The questions of traditions instilled an atmosphere of uneasiness and led people across class and political affiliation to question everyday life. Yet as this happened, a crisis of modernity evolved: as new ideas were introduced and put into effect, they began to break down due to society’s resistance to change. The hindrance caused by World War I on Germany’s economy reduced the chance for growth and compromise within the Weimar, which would have been palatable to those who rejected the Republic. Without the room to distribute wealth, the Weimar suffered, and disputes over wages and labor costs increasingly divided German society into two. It would be unfair to look at the Weimar Republic’s only significance as being its ending. Even so, an analysis must not just be made of National Socialism, but the conditions that helped it grow and consolidate power. In short, while the Republic rightly has its own history, it is also proper to judge the Weimar against the events that caused and followed its demise (Fischer, 1995).

After the fall of the last democratic Weimar government, a majority in the government was lost. In March 1930, Paul Hindenburg established a cabinet headed by a man named Heinrich Brüning. Brüning implemented a series of emergency decrees, carrying out rigorous policies that further cut wages and social expenses in an effort to balance the budget. By the following election six months later, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) had made significant gains from German voters. By July 1932, the NSDAP party, alongside other radical political parties, made up the majority of the Reichstag. In the years of economic depression, the NSDAP was able to garner power through solidarity with the working class (Kershaw, 2000). Pre-industrialization, the concept of idleness was practically unknown to the working class. The notion of a full-time job is quite new, and with it, the line between leisure time and work. This new concept, while freeing in terms of providing people with guidelines regarding work and play, also led to the concept of unemployment. By the 1920s, the topic of unemployment was at the center of political debate. Unemployment was not a serious social or political problem pre-World War I, but the rise in legislation regarding welfare and social security pushed unemployment as the hot topic in political discourse (Berghahn, 1984).

However, the disturbance of the economy due to the switch from consumer goods to war production brought in a significant amount of unemployment. The need to deal with this, to support dependents of soldiers at the Front, and later, to provide those returning from the war in 1918-19 with the means of subsistence until they found a job: these were the political imperatives that lay behind the emergence of the unemployment benefit system that took on concrete form at the start of the Weimar Era (Peukert, 1991).

References

• Berghahn, V. R. (1984). Modern Germany: Society, Economy and Politics in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press.
• Comte, A. (1830). Course of Positive Philosophy. Paris: Bachelier.
• Evans, R. J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books.
• Fischer, F. (1995). From Kaiserreich to Third Reich. Allen & Unwin.
• Jones, L. (2012). Modernity and Its Discontents. Routledge.
• Kershaw, I. (2000). Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Peukert, D. J. K. (1991). The Weimar Republic: The Crisis of Classical Modernity. Hill and Wang.
• Smith, A. D. (2005). Industrialization and Modern Society. Routledge.
• Weitz, E. D. (1997). Creating German Communism, 1890-1990. Princeton University Press.