english_Germany | Anansi Tactics

The German Revolution

Brian Peterson’s article, “Workers’ Councils in Germany, 1918–19: Recent Literature on the Rätebewegung,” stands as one of the most systematic and theoretically charged interventions in the debate on the German Revolution of 1918–1919 and the movement of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils. Peterson approaches the historiography of the Räte not merely as historical material, but as a terrain of political theory—one that condenses fundamental questions about the nature of revolutionary power, the limits of parliamentary socialism, and the dynamics of workers’ self-government.

The revolutionary crisis that erupted in November 1918 set in motion a form of political organization that could not be easily fitted into existing institutional frameworks. Workers’ and soldiers’ councils emerged as an immediate response to the disintegration of state authority and to the masses’ need to collectively regulate life, production, and security. At the same time, the formation of the Council of People’s Deputies and the prospect of a National Assembly reintroduced the parliamentary element. The result was a situation that Peterson—following the Marxist tradition—describes as dual power: two competing centers of legitimacy and political enforcement temporarily coexisting within the same social field.

Historians of the “Räte school” interpret this dual power as potentially stabilizable. In their view, the councils could function as organs of oversight and democratization of the state, while parliament would retain its role as the supreme legislative body. This perspective rests on the assumption that the working class primarily sought democratic reform of the state rather than a radical overturning of social relations of power. Accordingly, the failure of the revolution is attributed either to the “irresponsible radicalism” of the revolutionary Left or to the hesitation of the Social Democratic leadership.

Peterson dismantles this position at the theoretical level. He argues that dual power is not simply a historical phase that can be prolonged indefinitely, but a structurally unstable condition. Drawing on analyses of the Russian Revolution—particularly Trotsky’s theory—he emphasizes that dual power contains an internal tendency toward intensification. Organs of workers’ power, even when they begin with moderate aims, are compelled by their very functioning to extend their control from the political sphere into the economy and production. In this way, the democratic revolution is necessarily transformed into a social and socialist one.

In the German case, this dynamic was expressed primarily through factory councils. The Betriebsräte did not confine themselves to representing workers vis-à-vis the state; they directly challenged capitalists’ right to control the production process itself. The practical experience of workers’ control cultivated a radicalization that could not be reconciled with a simple return to parliamentary normality. For Peterson, it is precisely this dynamic that demonstrates why the idea of a harmonious coexistence between councils and parliament is a political illusion.

From this vantage point, the stance of Ebert and the SPD leadership does not appear as a “misunderstanding” or a lack of political foresight, but as a conscious choice. Ebert understood that the preservation of the councils—even in a limited role—would strengthen the dynamic of dual power and make the stabilization of parliamentary socialism impossible. The use of the Freikorps and the alliance with the old state apparatus were, therefore, a logical response from the standpoint of preserving the bourgeois form of the state.

Peterson goes further still, arguing that the very experience of the Räte served an educative function for the working class. Through the conflicts of 1919, workers learned in practice that control of the state and the economy cannot be permanently shared with the bourgeoisie. Although the revolution was defeated, this experience exposed the limits of parliamentary social democracy and the structural contradiction of any attempt at “peaceful” coexistence between two antagonistic social systems.

In his final conclusion, Peterson acknowledges the contribution of Räte historians to understanding the German working class, but criticizes them for remaining trapped in a defensive, anti-fascist version of socialism. In Peterson’s view, their insistence on the possibility of a lasting dual power underestimates the radical potential of workers’ self-organization and obscures the fundamental dilemma posed by every revolutionary crisis: either a deepening of workers’ power or counterrevolution. “Workers’ Councils in Germany, 1918–19: Recent Literature on the Rätebewegung” thus arrives at a theoretical conclusion of lasting significance: the working class, even when it begins with moderate aims, tends through its own activity to challenge capitalist relations of power as a whole—making dual power not a solution, but a transitional and explosive stage.

Suggested readings