Originally published in German by SAV (ISA in Germany) on 28 March
The new government consisting of the Merz-led CDU/CSU and SPD has rammed through a new amendment to the Basic Law through the old, long since voted-out Bundestag (German national parliament) in an undemocratic fast-track procedure. This amendment is intended to initiate the largest rearmament program in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. This program will not only provide a new special fund of €500 billion, but will also finance open-ended defense spending exceeding 1% of GDP through taxes, circumventing the debt brake. This goes hand-in-hand with aggressive war rhetoric and ideological preparation for Germany’s new leadership role in the world.
For years, the dictate of the “black zero” applied, blocking any demand for investment in favor of the majority of the population. Different rules apply to Germany’s rearmament and war preparations. This partial relaxation of the debt brake was made palatable in propaganda terms with an additional “special fund” of 500 billion euros for federal and state infrastructure projects. However, this infrastructure expansion also partly serves as preparation for war. Dilapidated roads and railways are hardly suitable for transporting weapons and deploying troops. In addition, a general improvement in infrastructure serves the overall interests of German industry and the economy—in an increasingly fierce global competition that is also being played out through “peaceful” trade conflicts.
The debt brake was introduced in the era of liberal capitalism in order to give austerity policies legal protection and to put a stop to policies of broad investment in social welfare, education and healthcare or classic Keynesian economic policy.
In terms of military policy, Germany had committed itself to a small, powerful professional army at the beginning of the century, which was ready to be sent on out-of-area missions from Afghanistan to Mali as a junior partner to the USA or France. Compulsory military service was suspended in 2011. However, the world situation has changed radically after two decades.
A fierce confrontation between imperialist blocs now dominates the world situation. With the Russian attack on Ukraine in 2022, the German ruling class, represented by Olaf Scholz, openly spoke of a “turning point”. The 100 billion euro package for rearmament was put together overnight. The change of power in Washington at the end of last year marks an intensified reorientation of US imperialism towards asserting its interests single-handedly and concentrating on the main conflict with China—at the expense of its Ukrainian ally. EU Europe—led by Germany and France—is now on the front line of the battle with Russia.
Propagandistically, those in power in this country repeatedly point out how much Europe’s armies are lagging behind Russia’s armament. An objective look puts this statement into perspective. Taken together, the armies of the EU states and Great Britain are stronger than the Russian army in terms of armaments and troop strength. Even when adjusted for purchasing power, Russian military expenditure is lower than that of the European NATO states. European industry is more efficient. What the EU as a loose federation of independent and competing states lacks, however, is a unified nation state. The ruling classes within the EU are trying to ally themselves against the competition from China and Russia, but they also have different interests.
Economic Consequences
Russia has successfully converted its economy—which is weak compared to the EU and has been strongly oriented towards China since 2022—to a war economy. No European country or the USA has taken such a step since the Second World War. It is therefore correct to speak, as the British economist Adam Tooze does, of a “pre-war” or “rearmament economy” in Germany. The entire economy is not yet to be adapted to the needs of the military, as was the case in Germany during the First and Second World Wars. At that time, 30–40% of GDP was spent on the military, not just 2–5%. In terms of size and scope, however, the currently planned rearmament program is unprecedented in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, even if the share of military expenditure was higher during the period of remilitarization under Adenauer and was heading towards 5%, it had a much lower GDP.
In economic terms, rearmament is not without consequences. The arms industry benefits directly. Rheinmetall shares are going through the roof, and entire branches of industry that were previously in crisis are benefiting in the short term from orders for the military or infrastructure expansion. But in the medium term, armament is extremely unproductive: tanks, warships, drones, fighter jets and missiles do not increase society’s wealth or create new value. In a recent study, the Kiel Institute for Economic Power estimates that GDP could increase by 0.9% per year if 3.5% of GDP were to flow into the production of Europe’s own high-tech weapons. In the medium and long term, however, the huge arms build-up will drive up inflation and make national debt a problem. According to the logic of short-term profitability, armament is lucrative for investors and corporations, but economically destructive in the long term. Furthermore, it is clear that what flows into the military is lacking elsewhere. The German government is sticking to the debt brake in all other areas—the billions invested in armaments and war preparations financed by debt will in turn lead to drastic cuts in all other areas. Restrictions on unemployment payments (Bürgergeld) are already being planned, and attacks on pensions, public holidays and the healthcare system may follow.
Public debt under capitalism means that the state borrows from the rich, primarily from banks. It pays the interest from tax revenues, which come mainly from working people in the form of wage taxes and excise duties. If the debt is high enough, the repayment is postponed further into the future. The banks don’t care, the main thing is that the interest keeps flowing and the state guarantees the loans. Without the massive taxation of the rich and the nationalization of banks, the planned debt through armament and “special assets” will massively promote wealth redistribution in favour of the rich.
A Fire Hazard
Rearmament and the achievement of “war readiness” in Germany and Europe not only lead to more social cuts and economic crises—above all, they are a fire hazard. Because the aim is to be ready for war against imperialist competitors. Since 2022, one redline after another has been crossed for this goal. Macron has been talking about sending troops to Ukraine since spring 2024. NATO is deploying massive forces in the Baltic states.
Bourgeois politicians and “experts” are calling for compulsory military service, and hospitals are to be made “fit for war” in order to be able to treat around “1,000 seriously injured people a day”. The narrative is similar to that of the darkest days of the Cold War, according to which “the Russians” are just waiting to overrun Europe and will supposedly be in Warsaw, Berlin or Paris by 2030 if “we” do not prevent this through massive rearmament. The danger of escalation into a world war is played down. The lucrative business of the “experts” known from podcasts and talk shows is to outdo each other. At the end of March, military historian and particularly zealous war monger Sören Neitzel said that we could experience our “last summer of peace” in 2025 before Russia tests whether NATO reacts to attacks in the Baltic states in the autumn.
In fact, rearmament is making the EU itself increasingly dangerous. This is made clear in the EU white paper for European defense readiness in 2030, which justifies the target of 800 billion euro more for EU armament.
Under the heading “Porcupine Strategy” — the “porcupines” are the Ukrainians — it states:
“The outcome of this war will be a decisive factor for our collective security in the coming decades … Ukraine remains the frontline of European defense and security and is the central arena of the new international order … the EU’s military mobility corridors should extend to Ukraine.”
The EU is thus making it clear that it does not want to accept the freezing of the conflict along the current front lines. The outcome is to be changed. In the end, this can only mean that the ruling classes in the EU and the UK want to prepare for a “second round” in Ukraine in order to revise the results. In this context, the debate initiated by Macron and Starmer about French and British “peacekeepers” takes on a different meaning—it is less about securing a ceasefire, as with UN peacekeepers, and more about Western “boots on the ground” in Ukraine, making a direct war with Russia more likely.
Furthermore, the Russian periphery and the pro-Western border area between Russia and NATO/EU, i.e. Georgia, Moldova and the Baltic states, which is not under Moscow’s control, is seen as a future area of conflict. However, Trump’s change of course in foreign policy leaves open what role NATO can still play in this. From the point of view of those in power, Europe’s ability to wage war may have to be replaced.
Against the Drive Towards War!
Politically, the militaristic propaganda is catching on in Germany. Various surveys show that a majority is afraid of Russia and 76% are in favor of more investment in German armaments, according to the ZDF Politbarometer of 7 March 2025. 84% would be in favor of joint European armed forces—especially since the USA’s change of course in foreign policy. Many Die Linke voters also think this way, as do most trade union members.
Marxist forces within the left and in the DGB (German Trade Union Confederation) trade unions are forced to swim against the militaristic tide and patiently explain that more armament does not create more security, but rather increases the risk of war. At the same time, however — to the displeasure of many warmongers in politics and the media — there is little willingness among Germans to actually go to war, kill and die. Since 2022, significantly more reservists have refused to serve in the armed forces. The Bundeswehr (German military) is shrinking instead of growing, and there is no enthusiasm for the army among young people. That is why those in power want to reach out to young people and are becoming increasingly aggressive and persistent in their efforts to place the Bundeswehr and its propaganda in schools, universities and vocational colleges, and are working on the reintroduction of compulsory military service.
The rejection of any rearmament of the bourgeois state, any militarization, is the duty of the left. Many on the left, parts of the peace movement and the BSW (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance), which was voted out of the Bundestag, have rightly referred to the latest arms package whipped through the Bundestag and Bundesrat with the term “new war credits”, reminiscent of 1914. The approval of the SPD then, which saw itself as Marxist at the time, came as a severe shock to many, including Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg.
As a result, a break with social democracy became necessary in Germany through the formation of the USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party) and later the KPD (German Communist Party). Today, Die Linke is the only relevant anti-militarist party. Unfortunately, it is nothing new that parts of Die Linke have also fallen over the issue of militarism and have openly violated the principles and resolutions of their own party. Often “only” in argumentation, but again and again also in concrete parliamentary decisions, such as the vote by Carola Rackete, MEP elected on the Die Linke ticket, in favor of arms deliveries to Ukraine.
The approval of the state governments of Bremen and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania—which the senators and ministers of Die Linke could have prevented — to lift the debt brake for armament represents the most serious breach of the party’s anti-militarist principles to date.
Die Linke and the DGB should resist the rearmament program and mobilize protests. IG Metall, which organizes workers in the direct and indirect armaments sector, has a particular responsibility. It is not the arms industry, i.e. production for war and destruction, that can end the crisis in industry, but the conversion of production to civilian products and the needs of people and the environment. Die Linke is acting against rearmament, albeit not consistently. There is no resistance in the DGB, and in some cases—e.g. in IG Metall—there is even active support for the expansion of the arms industry. Marxists must therefore be prepared to consciously swim against the tide for a while, even within their trade unions.
The representatives of the “left” government who voted against a clear party decision in the Bundesrat do not belong in Die Linke. They must be politically isolated and pushed out. Their participation in the state governments must be ended.
