Friday, September 11, 2026

3717. Tech whistleblowers Warn AI Could Wipe Out Humanity

By Gabby Cansliff, The Guardian, September 11, 2026


Another day, another horseman of the apocalypse galloping over the horizon. Lately we have heard from so many AI doomers – tech whistleblowers popping up to warn that their work is probably going to kill us – that we’re becoming almost blase about it. Humanity wiped out within a decade? Well, only if another world war or the climate crisis doesn’t get us first. Since it’s never clear whether the tech threat is real, or just a twisted form of hype from an industry that drums up investment by making their products sound more powerful than they really are, most of us settle for trying not to think about it too hard.

But something about the AI researcher Jacob Coxon’s very public resignation from the cutting-edge American lab Anthropic, via a post on X arguing that he can’t keep working for companies “gambling with our lives”, has cut through where bigger names have not. Most chillingly, he claimed that colleagues still at Anthropic aren’t staying because they think he’s wrong about the dangers of pursuing self-improving super intelligence – the holy grail of machines that are not just smarter than humans but capable of building their own even more powerful successors, evolving independently of humans – but because they’re afraid of ceding the field to people with fewer scruples. His colleagues, Coxon said, talk routinely about the “endgame” or the “crunch time”, meaning that what they do in the next year or two will decide the fate of humanity. Whether that’s true or simply self-aggrandising techbro delusion, what he describes is an industry now practically begging to be saved from itself.

The frisson of alarm over AI running through Westminster this week was real, sharpened by news of Anthropic – which pitches itself as being more safety-conscious than its rivals OpenAI – declining for the first time to submit a new model for scrutiny by Britain’s AI safety watchdog. We are now entering a far more disruptive era of AI, dominated not by relatively basic chatbots but by agents designed to undertake tasks on humans’ behalf, making their own decisions about how to complete them. Unfortunately, it turns out even basic life admin requires the kind of fine judgments that come instinctively to humans but seem remarkably hard to codify for machines.

Take the over-zealous agent tasked recently by its Australian client with booking him into a pilates class, which responded to finding the class full by hacking the gym’s website and booting other people off the waiting list. Now imagine it blundering into something more life-threatening than a gym class. When Coxon says his industry hasn’t fixed problems with alignment, and when OpenAI’s chief scientist warned last week that no lab had solved them well enough to carry on scaling this fast much longer, what they’re talking about is this failure to replicate in machines the values and assumptions humans apply to decisions without even really knowing they’re doing it – including the sense of how far it’s justifiable to go in getting what you want.

A series of reported escapes by agents supposedly confined to OpenAI’s lab for testing, some of which contrived to access the internet behind their human supervisors’ backs and conduct real-world cyber-attacks, has meanwhile raised serious questions over the industry’s ability even to experiment safely. (Unnervingly, Coxon says newer models seem to know when they’re being tested, making it easier for them to deceive researchers.)

And agents don’t have to acquire anything like super intelligence to threaten human life: think how easily a cyber-attack on air traffic control, or NHS data systems, or even water purification systems could cause mass fatalities.

What’s happening in some frontier AI labs now is arguably the equivalent of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb, but this time led by private companies in a mad dash for wealth and market dominance, not scientists under an elected government’s command. Britons meanwhile got more say in sugar taxes on junk food than we’re getting over regulating something theoretically capable of rendering us extinct.

Given time, of course, it might prove possible to replicate in machines the vast ecosystem of social ties, moral codes, intensive parenting and state policing that humans have developed to stop us behaving like sociopaths. (Only this week, Google’s DeepMind reported an experiment where 100 agents were given a maths problem and told not to cheat: though a minority promptly did cheat, a larger group either snitched on them to the humans or helped devise technical fixes.) But time is the one thing nobody dares to give themselves in the middle of an arms race, which is why it’s high time for governments to act. We need an international agreement to press pause, not on AI research as a whole, but on the riskiest projects, until we better understand whether it will ever be possible to mitigate the dangers or control the results. Since it’s hard to imagine Donald Trump voluntarily sacrificing US geopolitical or commercial advantage over China for the good of humanity, leadership may have to come for now not from above but below, where industry insiders spooked by their own work are making common cause with the rest of us.

More Americans are now concerned than excited about AI, according to polling this summer from the Pew Research Center – and unusually it’s the young who are most hostile, afraid it will not only take their jobs but make it harder to form relationships or think creatively. (That’s what growing up on social media seemingly does for trust in tech.) Even big business seems increasingly sceptical, with almost two-thirds of international executives surveyed by the consultants McKinsey this summer reporting no measurable impact on earnings from using the admittedly basic AI tools now available to them.

Warnings about an AI bubble triggering another 2008-style global financial crash haven’t helped, while plans to build giant, energy-guzzling datacentres are meeting angry local resistance on both sides of the Atlantic from people who can’t see what’s in it for them. Pressing pause on potential Armageddon looks in the circumstances less like the Luddite option, and more like a smart way for tech companies to avoid a full-on backlash that will sweep away the good with the bad.

skip past newsletter promot

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

3716. Isiah Berlin: What Is Philosophy and Why It Matters

Manufacturing Intellect, 1976

Bryan Magee—world-renowned author and professor—and Sir Isaiah Berlin, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, and biographer of Karl Marx, answer fundamental questions such as "What is philosophy?" "Why does it matter?" and "Why should anybody be interested in it today?"




Friday, September 4, 2026

3715. Learning from Beavers: A Case Study of the Colorado River Crisis

By Kamran Nayeri, September 4, 2026


Anthropogenic crisis of the Colorado River

The anthropocentric industrial capitalist civilization has created existential crises: catastrophic global warming and catastrophic climate change, the Sixth Extinction, recurrent pandemics, and the nuclear holocaust.

In this essay, I will show how beavers, as social mammals that alter the environment to suit their lives, enhance or improve ecosystems. To support this claim, I will examine the anthropogenic crisis of the Colorado River. The Colorado River, which is five million years old, has been running with less and less water over the last few decades. Originating in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, the river is an important water source for seven U.S. states and two Mexican states before it eventually pours into the Gulf of California in Mexico.

Below are the major interventions in the Colorado River and how the crisis developed.

·       1922: The Colorado River Agreement is signed, which sets the amount of water taken from the river for the neighboring states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Under a 1944 treaty between the United States and Mexico, the United States pledged that 1,837 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River would be Mexico's share.

·       1930s: Major dam construction projects, including the Hoover Dam, were completed, which significantly altered river flow and water distribution.

·       2000s: Prolonged drought due to global warming and climate change led to a drop in water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, both created after the river dams were built. Currently, Lake Mead is at 28.5% capacity, and Lake Powell is at 26.2% capacity.

·       2012: The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reported that the Colorado River is running short of water. 

·       2021: The U.S. government declared water shortages for the first time, prompting forced water cuts in Arizona and Nevada.

·       2023: Heavy rainfall is forecast, providing temporary relief, but experts warn that several more rainy years are needed for the water shortage crisis to fully recover.

·       2026: Water scarcity continues, as the ongoing negotiations between states to share water and protect it in the current dire situation continue. Phoenix, a city of 1.6 million people built in the heart of the Arizona desert, is on a short list of cities that may be deprived of Colorado River water.

The anthropogenic crisis of the oceans

Of course, the crises caused by anthropocentric industrial capitalist civilization threaten life on the planet everywhere.  Take, for example, the oceans' crisis. Human activities have now altered 66% of the marine environment. 35.5% of assessed marine fish stocks are overfished. Eleven million tons of plastic enter the oceans each year, almost one million tons per month.  Industrial fishing, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, industrial agro-runoff carrying fertilizer, organic matter containing phosphorus and nitrogen, plastics, transportation, coastal development, mining, and chemical pollution all interact and cause cumulative population and ecological losses. One particularly striking historical indicator is the decline of global fisheries: the proportion of fish stocks considered biologically sustainable has fallen from 90% in 1974 to about 64.5% in 2021.

Compare this behavior of humans, who consider themselves god’s greatest creation, with the life of beavers in relation to the rest of nature.  

Who are the Beavers? 

North American beavers have a stout body, a yellow-brown to almost black coat, and a wide, smooth, scaly tail. They have curtained hind legs and forefinger paws. The beaver’s stout body allows it to retain heat.

North American beavers are the largest rodents in North America and the second largest in the world (South American capybaras are the heaviest). They weigh between 16 and 30 kilograms, and the heaviest beaver on record weighed 50 kilograms. They are 1 to 1.2 meters long and 0.3 to 0.5 meters high. The shape of the beaver's tail varies, but it is generally about 5 centimeters thick at the base and narrows to about 0.6 centimeters at the tip.

Beavers have long, orange front teeth. These teeth grow continuously throughout their life and wear down with daily use. These teeth sharpen on their own and can cut off a part of a tree the size of a person's finger with a bite. If the front teeth are too long, they can prevent the beaver's mouth from closing, which can lead to starvation and death. Beavers' front teeth look dark orange due to the large amount of iron in the enamel, which is the hard outer layer of teeth. Iron strengthens tooth enamel and helps prevent teeth from breaking or cracking when a beaver chews.

Beavers move regularly between aquatic and terrestrial environments. Their small, agile front legs are well adapted for working on land. They walk on five toes, grasp wood with their front paws,  and their claws are suitable for digging. The hind legs are larger, with fur that is suitable for swimming, and are fur-free except for the dorsal surface.

The hind legs also have a finger to clean, the second toe on the inside, with a unique double nail. Beavers are very meticulous groomers. They use the sorting finger as a comb to prevent their soft, thin fur from knotting and to maintain its waterproof, insulating properties. These flexible toes also kill thorns and parasites.

On land, the beaver moves very slowly, making it vulnerable to predators. But in the water, the beaver swims up to 10 kilometers per hour. Its large lungs allow it to stay underwater for up to 15 minutes while swimming more than half a kilometer.

Their whiskers help to distinguish objects around the beaver's face and head, which are especially useful in narrow passages and dark waters. The blue dog's eyes have a thin, transparent membrane called the nictitating membrane, which covers the eyeball underwater.  Beavers' vision is only good at close range. His outer ears are small, round, and have valves that close when immersed, and the beaver has a developed sense of hearing.

The shape of the tail is an individual and family feature, ranging from short and wide to long and slender. It is almost hairless and is covered with black scales. There is a clear border between fur and scales.  The tail acts as a rudder in swimming, supports balance when working on the ground, and warns of danger by frequently crossing the water's surface when it hits the water. Beavers also store fat in their tail and eat more fat in the fall so that they can survive on the fat stored in their tail if food is not available in the winter. The vertebrae on the back of the beaver extend to the tail and almost to the end.

Beavers are found throughout North America except for the deserts of California and Nevada, and parts of Utah and Arizona. They live in nearby ponds, lakes, rivers, swamps, streams, and wetlands.

Beavers are one of the few animals that change their habitat as needed; they build wooden dams woven with reeds, branches, and saplings, then cover them with mud.  These dams reduce river erosion by creating ponds where water flows slowly. These ponds support a wide range of small aquatic organisms and provide water and food for much larger animals. By building these dams, beavers create new habitats that support a diverse ecosystem.

Beavers also build dome-shaped huts known as lodges, which are 2 meters or more high and can reach 12 meters in width. A cabin can have one or more underwater entrances, and Beavers live in a lodge above the waterline. These lodges are often built off the coast, forming islands.  The lodge chamber may be 1.2 meters wide and 0.6 meters high, with walls about one-third of a meter thick that  are insulated and ventilated by a small hole in the ceiling called a "chimney." They usually cover the floor with wood chips to absorb excess moisture and provide a suitable substrate. Beavers spend the summer and autumn building dams and collecting and storing food for the winter.

North American beavers typically live 10 to 12 years. The oldest recorded beaver has lived to be 30 years.

Beavers communicate with each other by wagging their tails on the surface of the water.

Beavers scent-mark the boundaries of their enclosures by spreading castoreum secreted from their anus. This pungent, concentrated liquid is produced for olfactory marking and leaves a lasting odor. This fat sac is also secreted to keep the beaver's fur dry. The oil varies slightly between the sexes and is used in reproductive communication.

Inside the lodge, beavers use a variety of sounds (although their voice boxes are rudimentary) and body postures to communicate with family members. At the Smithsonian National Zoo,  beavers can be heard barking when they are upset

Beavers are herbivores that eat leaves, woody stems, and aquatic plants. Their main building materials are also their favorite foods: spruce, willow, birch, and maple.

In cold climates, beavers spend the winter in the cabin of their hut, feeding on the branches they store on the muddy bottom of the pond. The water acts like a refrigerator, keeping the stems cool and maintaining their nutritional value. Beavers hold their food with their front paws and eat like corn on the cob.

Beavers are mainly nocturnal. However, in areas where ponds freeze during the winter season, beavers may stay in their habitats or under the ice and feed on their fat reserves.

In the residence and underwater, light radiation remains constant and low for 24 hours, so sunrise and sunset are not visible. In the absence of "solar signs," the beaver's activity is not in sync with the solar day. The circadian rhythm, or regular cycle of the day, is disrupted, and the beaver's "days" become longer, ranging in length from 26 to 29 hours. At the zoo, the beaver wakes up around 4 p.m.

Social structure

Beavers form strong family bonds. They are social animals, and each group includes a couple, this year's young, and offspring from the previous year. There may be one or more new adults who are 2 years old or older from previous breeding seasons. These new adults usually do not reproduce.

In the winter, these family groups live together in their hut and share a food pantry. Their family life is very stable and is based on a hierarchy with one-year-old and newborn children following their parents. Physical violence is rare, and sounds, gestures, and postures are used inside the lodge to express their place in the group hierarchy.

It is generally believed that beavers mate for a lifetime.  They breed in the winter, from January to late February, and females give birth in the spring.

The babies are born weighing about half a kilogram; their eyes open, and their bodies are completely covered in fur. They go into the water inside their residence within half an hour after birth. Within a week, they become skilled swimmers.

Babies usually suckle and suckle with their mother for the first few weeks, and their weight increases significantly. Females have four nipples and sometimes sit upright to breastfeed the offspring. Evidence suggests the nipples are divided equally among the babies, which may explain the high survival rate. All babies are breastfed for about six weeks, and then the whole family brings them solid food.

On land, mothers often carry the cubs on their broad tails, sometimes even walking upright and holding them in their paws. In the water, the cubs may rest on the mother's back. The cubs help maintain the lodge and raise the next generation. 

The role of beavers in the ecosystem

Beavers are one of the most powerful freshwater ecosystem-shaping agents in North America and Europe. By building dams, digging canals, and cutting down trees, they turn streams into meandering wetlands that store water, filter pollutants, protect wildlife, and even prevent wildfire from spreading.

Before European colonization, an estimated 60 to 400 million beavers lived in North American waterways (Young, November 2025). Intensive fur trapping by European American mountain men and settlers in the 19th century drastically reduced the beaver population in the Colorado River basin, driven by the high demand for fur in the global fur trade (Young, December 2025). Hunters in the 1820s and 1830s targeted tributary streams such as the Little Colorado River and exploited abundant beaver colonies to produce waterproof fur that fueled hat production in Europe and the eastern United States. This commercial exploitation, which culminated in the mid-19th century, pushed many of the Southwest's watersheds to the brink of extinction, as populations could not recover from incessant harvesting. Habitat changes intensified trapping pressure, as expanding agriculture, mining, and settlement in the arid Southwest disrupted marginal ecosystems essential to beaver survival. Land-use changes, including river canalization, clearing vegetation for agriculture and resource extraction, habitat fragmentation, and the decline of food sources such as willow and aspen, exacerbated the effects of over-trapping. This combined influx caused widespread wetland loss and destroyed river areas, turning vibrant water systems into dug canals and dry floodplains that lasted into the 20th century. Without beavers engineering ponds and slowing water flow, soil erosion intensified, biodiversity declined sharply, and the basin's water-holding capacity shrank, leaving a legacy of ecological simplification.

 Today, only 9 to 12 million beavers remain, representing an 80 to 98 percent decline from their historical populations. This decline has had a chain effect on ecosystems across the continent.

How beavers shape waterways

Beavers are often called "ecosystem engineers" because they physically regenerate the environments in which they live. A family of beavers can dam a stream, flood a canyon, and create a whole new wetland that didn't exist before. These dams slow water flow, spread it across the plain, and raise surrounding groundwater levels. At the source of the streams to which the beavers have been transported, about 243 cubic meters of water were stored in the first year due to the construction of dams 100 meters from the river.  This is enough to visibly change the hydrology of a small valley.

But what is happening underground is less visible. Beavers' dams direct water deep into the soil and regenerate groundwater. In a scientific study, the displaced beavers raised groundwater levels by up to one-third of a cubic meter and stored almost 2.4 times the groundwater of each dam. This is especially important in arid regions that rely on groundwater from wells because it maintains vegetation in the summer and prevents rivers from drying out. Dams also lower river temperatures, which helps cold-water fish species and slows evaporation in the warmer months.

Water treatment

Beavers’ ponds act like slow treatment systems for polluted water. When a stream accumulates behind a dam, sediments settle, and calm, low-oxygen conditions at the bottom of the pond create natural chemical processes that break down excess organic matter. This is especially valuable in agricultural areas where runoff carries nitrate and phosphate from fertilizers.

Research on beaver ponds in agricultural watersheds shows they can remove 5% to 45% of the nitrate load, depending on the season and pond conditions. In a study comparing upstream and downstream water quality in the beaver enclosure, nitrate concentrations decreased by 43% and phosphate concentrations by 51%. In the summer, when biological activity peaked, these reductions were even greater: 47% for nitrate and 61% for phosphate. Even in winter, ponds removed 37% nitrate and 38% phosphate. Compared with a nearby agricultural stream without a water dog, reductions were dramatic: 64% less nitrate and 86% less phosphate.

This treatment capacity is essentially free while municipalities spend millions of dollars to treat built wetlands.

Enhancing ecosystem diversity

Beavers create wetlands for far more species than streams and forests that are replaced. Open beaver ponds combine muddy edges, standing dead trees, and dense growth, forming a series of microhabitats that attract everything from insects to large mammals  (Larsen et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2019).

Recent comparisons between beaver-built wetlands and man-made ponds found that beaver ponds attracted more than twice as many floating flies and 45% more butterflies than nearby artificial ponds. On a typical night, beaver ponds hosted an average of 5 species of bats versus 4 species in other parts of the same river, showing a 22% increase in diversity. These differences likely stem from the structural complexity of beaver wetlands. The combination of standing dead wood, live shrubs, aquatic plants, and varied water depths creates feeding and nesting opportunities that a simple pond cannot match.

Beaver ponds also provide vital habitat for amphibians, waterfowl, and songbirds. Flooded trees create nesting holes for woodpeckers and owls. The warm, calm shallow waters are ideal for frogs and salamanders to mate. The lush vegetation on the edges of the ponds also attracts deer, reindeer, and other herbivores to drink and feed.

A complicated relationship with salmon

The relationship between beavers and fish is one of the more complex parts of their ecological story. In many environments, beaver ponds increase fish populations. The slow, deep water provides shelter from predators, and the organic matter that accumulates in the ponds feeds the insect larvae that the young fish eat. Studies have documented higher fish densities, faster growth rates, and better survival of juvenile salmon in beaver-pond habitats than in open streams.

But this relationship is not always positive. In large river floodplains with extensive tributary channels, beavers' dams can fragment habitat by blocking fish passage between the ponds and the main river. Research on two rivers in Alaska showed this clearly. In one river where beavers built many dams in tributary channels, juvenile salmon density in beaver-created ponds was 3 to 12 times lower than in habitats connected to the spring stream and the main channel. The researchers estimated that without dams, the floodplain of that river could raise nearly three times as much salmon and produce almost twice as much fish biomass.

Context matters. In small, degraded streams with limited habitat complexity, beaver activity usually helps fish by deepening ponds, cooling the water, and adding structure. In floodplains that are already well connected, a large number of dams can fragment the system and reduce total fish production. This is why fisheries managers sometimes evaluate waterfowl and salmon interactions on a river-to-river basis and do not enforce general rules.

Fire resistance

In the western United States, which is prone to wildfires, beavers have been known to be unexpected agents of preventing wildfires. By raising groundwater levels, moistening soil in floodplains, and preserving green vegetation in dry summers, beaver dams create bands of moisture in arid landscapes (Murray, 2025;

Studies of wildfires in the western United States showed that in the Rocky Mountains region, Beaver Ponds reduced the intensity of burning in areas around floodplains of large fires. The mechanism is simple: moist soil and lush vegetation, such as dry grass and dead shrubs, don't burn. Beaver wetlands essentially create fire barriers along river paths.

This effect has practical implications for the community. Networks of moist, fire-resistant habitats created by beavers can slow the spread of flames and give firefighters more time to arrive. Some fire prevention managers in the western U.S. are now considering relocating the beavers or constructing similar dams  (man-made structures that resemble water dog dams) as a low-cost strategy to increase fire resistance in landscapes.

Why beaver population decline matters

The loss of 80 to 98 percent of North America's beaver population means the disappearance of millions of dams, ponds, and small wetlands that had shaped the continent's hydrology for thousands of years. Streams that once ran through vast, humid floodplains. Wetlands dried up. Groundwater levels dropped.  The ecological transformations that beavers offered for free, from water storage to nutrient treatment and habitat creation, disappeared along with them.

Restoring the beaver population won't solve all of the watershed's problems, but evidence suggests that even a small number of beavers can tangibly improve water storage, water quality, biodiversity, and fire resistance within a year of human-assisted reintroduction

Human-assisted restoration efforts in the Colorado River basin include relocation programs that relocate beavers from areas that generate conflict or have been relocated to areas that are less occupied and suitable for regeneration (Sadiq, 2025). These initiatives aim to leverage beavers' natural dam-building to improve riparian habitats, conserve water in drought-prone areas, and support ecosystem recovery throughout the arid watershed. A notable example is the 2019 transfer project led by Utah State University researchers, which relocated beavers to tributaries such as the Price River to restore degraded waterways by promoting wetland formation and sediment absorption. In Colorado, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Administration has pursued strategies to strengthen populations in strategic areas, moving from lethal control to relocation where possible to maximize habitat benefits. These programs often involve collaboration between state wildlife agencies such as Colorado Parks and Wildlife and conservation organizations such as the Colorado Beaver Working Group, which coordinates efforts to expand the Blue Dog's presence in the basin's historically appropriate but currently uninhabited areas. By targeting places where blue dog engineering can improve water infiltration and biodiversity, these restorations complement broader restoration goals amid ongoing water scarcity.

Conclusion

The key difference between human activity in human-centered industrial capitalist civilization and beaver activity is that while human activities tend to destroy ecosystems, the beaver community builds its environment in ways that enhance ecosystems and biodiversity. Both behaviors are the result of species evolution. For 2.5 million years, the genus Homo, our ancestors, interacted with the rest of nature largely like hunter-gatherers. Even our species, Homo sapiens, which appeared about 300,000 years ago, behaved similarly because we were also hunter-gatherers who saw ourselves as inseparable from nature and lived by a culture of ecocentrism. However, with the advent of agriculture in the Holocene, groups of early farmers emerged and began to domesticate plants and animals to create an artificial ecosystem called the farm. This required a radical cultural shift from ecocentrism to anthropocentrism. The farm required farmers to dominate and control plants and animals for their benefit, and it also saw wild nature as a threat that had to be cleaned up when needed. Mother Nature became a source of wealth that could be exploited whenever it wanted. The Beavers Society teaches us that it is possible and better to return to ecocentrism and love of nature and culture versus having a culture.

References:

Clements, Charlie D.  and Dan N. Harmon. “Beavers and Riparian Habitats.” The Progressive Rancher. March 8, 2023.

Ebbs, Stephenie. “How Beavers Could Help the Colorado River Survive Future Droughts.” ABC News. April 20, 2023.

Larsen,  Annegret, Joshua R. Larsen, Stuart N. Lane. “Dam Builders and Their Works: Beaver Influences on the Structure and Function of River Corridor Hydrology, Geomorphology, Biogeochemistry and Ecosystems.” Earth-Science Reviews.  July 2021.

Murray, James. “How Did the Loss of Beavers Affect the Environment?” The Institute for Environmental Research and Education.  August 27, 2025.

Pobis, Madison. “How Reintroducing Beavers Can Build Watershed Resilience.” Woods Institute of Environment, Stanford University. 

Sadiq, Muhammad. “The Story of a Town Saved by Beavers.” Animals Around the Globe. April 16, 2025.  

Singhai, Swasti. “As the Second-Largest Reservoir in the Nation Drops, So Does Tourism.” USA Today. August 31, 2026.

Wan, Luwen. “How Reintroducing Beavers Can Enhance Ecological Health.” Stanford Report. August 11, 2025.

Wu, Haipeng, Jin Chen, Jijun Xu, Guangming Zeng, Lianhai Sang, Qiang Liu, Zhengjie Yin,  Juan Dai, Dacong Yin, Jie Liang, and Shujing Ye. “Effects of Dam Construction on Biodiversity: A Review.” ScienceDirect. June 2019.

Young, Laura. “Was There a Prehistoric Beaver?” The Institute for Environmental Research and Education. November 8, 2025.

___________. “Why did the beaver population decrease?” The Institute for Environmental Research and Education. December 6, 2025. 

Thursday, September 3, 2026

3714. Trotsky on the Rise of Fascism in Germany

By Leon Trotsky (taken from Marxist.org)


Though expelled from the USSR, Trotsky and the Left Opposition still considered themselves a faction of the Communist International. Until Hitler came to power, they tried to influence the Comintern and the German reds, to return them to the Leninist precepts of internationalism and internal democracy.

They did not (yet) support the rise of a Fourth International. It was these events in Germany, and the failure of the German Communist Party and the Communist International that lead to Trotsky’s call for a new, “Fourth” Communist International. We include one 1940 article on the nature of Fascism that Trotsky was working on the time he was murdered by a Stalinist agent. The rest of this collection deals specifically with the rise of the Nazis in the early 1930s.

In the following collection of Trotsky’s letters and articles, he is specifically addressing the German Communist Party, which he considered the only realistic organization to stop fascism. His goal was for them to break with Comintern policy, not the Comintern itself. These series of articles and essays, however, show Trotsky’s method in his ultimate break with the Comintern.

We’ve also include a chronology of events beginning with the rise of the workers movement at the end of World War I and statistics on the various elections that the Communist Party participated in.

This page was originally compiled by the Zodiac. The page has been reformatted to conform with the Trotsky Internet Archive. Several additional articles, previously un-transcribed have been contributed by the TIA’s director and other TIA volunteers.



1918: German revolution dies, due in large part to the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The SPD belongs to the old Second International. Before the war, it had never held power, only opposition. Class cooperationists, the SPD supported the war. In working to prevent a successful Red revolution, the SPD allies with capitalists and the army, even cooperating with right-wing “Freikorps”, thereby helping train early cadres of the future National Socialist Party (Nazis).

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht are both executed by the state. Russian Bolsheviks had counted on a successful German revolution for the survival of their own revolution.

1919: German monarchy folds, the Weimar Republic is born. The Weimar constitution is a standard “social democrat"-style arrangement: workers are granted several “social safety net” programs, while the capitalists (and army) retain with full powers, which they more or less “promise” to never abuse. The first Weimar cabinet is headed by the SPD, and their Chancellor Philipp Scheidemann, in coalition with two capitalist parties, the Catholic Center Party and the German Democratic Party. (NOTE: In the 1919 Reichstag elections, 45 percent of voters support parties which label themselves Marxist.)

1921: All revolutionary opportunity has passed. The Third International (Communist International, or Comintern) initiates a “united front” strategy as a way of strengthening Communist parties in nations where Social Democrats dominated—rather like Germany.

1922: German government is crippled by, and unable to meet, war reparations specified by the Treaty of Versailles.

1923 January: French government sends troops to occupy the Ruhr. Inflation soars, the working class launches massive strikes, the middle class has savings wiped out. It’s an extreme crisis and the government is helpless. KPD membership swells and new ultra-right movements (like the Nazis) grow. But KPD leadership, guided by the Comintern, misses the opportunity. By 1924, events stabilize (with some American aid).

1924 May: Reichstag elections see “Marxist” parties drop to to 33 per cent of the electorate; Nazi strength declines even more drastically.

1924 December: Another round of Reichstag elections sees SPD support grow and KPD drop.

1925: Presidential election. Monarchist general Hindenburg elected president in runoff election against Wilhelm Marx, member of the Catholic Center Party—the latter being supported by the SPD and the liberal capitalist parties—and Ernst Thaelmann of the KPD.

1925-29: Weimar Republic’s stable period. SPD remains Germany’s largest party with powerful support from the working class. No realistic plan for a German social revolution can be constructed without intelligent consideration of the SPD.

Meanwhile, in the USSR, the “Left Opposition” is defeated by Stalinists. In 1927, Trotsky is expelled from the Soviet Communist Party. In 1928, he’s deported to Siberia. In 1929, he’s exiled to Turkey. Stalinists purge more than just Left Opposition. By 1930, the Communist International and affiliated parties are merely bureaucratic extensions of Soviet foreign policy. The leaders of the KPD are appointees of the Kremlin.

1928 May: Reichstag elections return the SPD to cabinet with Chancellor Hermann MÜller. KPD get a third of the SPD’s vote (Nazis get less than a tenth). This SPD leadership is further right than before and opts for something called the Great Coalition—including the People’s Party—and holds power for about two years.

Meanwhile, the Comintern adopts the ultra-left doctrine of the Third Period and something called social fascism. The doctrine says the collapse of the world’s capitalist nations is supposedly following a handy pattern:
 

  • The First Period (1917-1924): Capitalist crisis and revolutionary upsurge;
  • The Second Period (1925-1928): Capitalist stability;
  • The Third Period (now): Capitalist crises return and proles are ready to rise up again.

The Comintern concludes it’s time to end Second Period collaboration with Social Democrats (and their powerful working class base). In the case of Germany, it means these SPD workers are really just “social fascists,” a sort of left wing of fascism.

1929 Fall: The Great Depression, death knell of Weimar. German unemployment hits 3 million. The already fragile German economy collapses. The populace is radicalized. KPD membership grows, despite alienation from SPD-led unions. The fascists likewise grow, now even attracting financial support from big capitalists. And the storm troops (Sturm-Abteilung or SA) hits 100,000 by year’s end.

1930 March: the SPD Müller cabinet resigns. Never again will Weimar see a majority government. President Hindenburg appoints Heinrich Brüning of the Center Party as Chancellor. Bruening tries to establish a more right wing government but fails to get sufficient support in the Reichstag.

Brüning cites Paragraph 48 of the Weimar Constitution and claims to now rule by “emergency decree.” The Social Democrats helped construct that paragraph, never imagining they’d be the target of it.

1930 July: Brüning’s emergency decrees on budget are overruled by SPD, KPD, and Nazi deputies. Hindenburg dissolves the Reichstag and calls for new elections.

1930 September 14: Election day. SPD votes tumble by 6 percent, while the KPD rises by 40 percent. However, their combined vote falls from 40.4 per cent of electorate to 37.6. The real change is the Nazi vote—up 700 per cent. The Nazis go from ninth to second-largest party. Meanwhile, the Comintern-led KPD dubs this a victory for the Communists and “the beginning of the end” for the Nazis. The Comintern concurs.

Trotsky’s opinion was slightly different. To paraphrase him, the KPD is like a singer who sings wedding songs at funerals, and funeral songs at weddings ... and is soundly thrashed at each occasion.


1930 October 18: Shaken by the Nazi electoral triumph, the SPD decides to back Brüning’s government. With SPD support, Brüning remains Chancellor another 26 months. It is an unpopular rule that only benefits the Nazis. Big business support of Hitler continually increases. The SA is emboldened in attacks on working-class radicals.

Stymied by the SPD-Brüning block, the Nazis focus on gaining control of Prussia’s Landtag (state legislature). Prussia is the largest state in Germany, with over two-thirds of the population. It’s a Social Democratic stronghold. The Nazis, right-wing Nationalists and the Stahlhelm (a counter-revolutionary veterans’ organization), invoke a clause in the Weimar Constitution to launch a referendum to oust the Prussian SPD-coalition government. KPD opposes the referendum.

1931: Over 4 million unemployed.

1931 July 21: KPD leaders present ultimatum to sPD coalition leaders in Prussia: make a united front with us or we’ll back the Nazis. SPD leaders reject it. The KPD backs the Nazis, despite the fact it might put the Nazis in power—though now the KPD calls it the “Red referendum”. Nazis and German Communists campaign together to remove Prussia’s SPD-led government.

1931 August 9: Prussian Referendum fails. SPD stays in control.

1931 September: SPD leaders expel Reichstag deputies Max Seydewitz and Kurt Rosenfeld for open opposition to SPD support of Brüning regime. The expelled deputies favor a united front against fascists.

1931 October: More SPD expulsions/resignations. SPD splits. Left Social Democrats unite with SPD youth, pacifists, and some of the Brandlerite Communist Party Opposition (KPO) to form the Socialist Workers Party (SAP). Six SAP leaders are deputies in the Reichstag.

Trotsky takes a positive attitude toward new group, hoping that its members will overcome SPD centrism. But SAP is a confused body with no real impact on working-class politics. (In July 1932 elections, SAP gets merely 72,630 votes and lose all six Reichstag seats. In the November 1932 election, their vote drops further still. SPD rank and file can not be dislodged from their party that easily. So rather than destroy the SPD in this time of crisis, one should work to save it.)

1931 December: SPD leaders create the Iron Front for Resistance Against Fascism. The organization seeks to engage the old Reichsbanner, the SPD youth, and labor and liberal groups. SPD rallies to the Iron Front, holds mass demonstrations, fights fascists in the streets, and arms selves. This is more than the SPD leaders wanted. But SPD workers don’t care and grow increasingly revolutionary. Meanwhile, the KPD has no ideological concept of a united front—hell, they just supported the Nazis in the “Red referendum.”


1932: Economic crisis deepens. Unemployed: 5 mil. “Social Democratic” state further dismantled.

1932 March 13: Presidential election. Three main candidates: Hindenburg, Hitler, and Thälmann. But the Nationalists also push Stahlhelm leader Theodor Düsterberg—who merely steals votes from Hitler. Last Presidential election, the SPD opposed Hindenburg. Now they support him over Hitler. The Iron Front becomes an electoral machine for the monarchist militarist.

1932 April 10: Run-off Presidential election held since no clear majority was established. Düsterberg withdraws so Nationalists can campaign for Hitler. Hindenburg wins, but Nazi vote has doubled in 17 months. Nonetheless, the SPD hails Hindenburg’s election as a triumph over fascism.

1932 April 14: Brüning has Hindenburg sign a decree outlawing Nazi SA and SS. Brüning thinks this curbs Hitler’s growth. Instead, it will prove to be Brüning’s fall.

1932 May 31: Hindenburg demands Chancellor Brüning resign. Hindenburg picks Franz von Papen of the Centre pary as new Chancellor. The Center party expels von Papen. He is basically Hindenburg’s puppet, without any support in the Reichstag.

1932 June 4: Papen dissolves the Reichstag and calls for new elections.

1932 June 15: Papen rescinds the ban on Nazi private armies. Wave of violence results. Hundreds dead/wounded. Papen bans political parades in fortnight before July 31 elections.

1932 July 17: Nazis march, under police escort, through working class Hamburg. Result: 19 dead, 285 wounded.

1932 July 20: Citing the Hamburg battle, Papen claims the Prussian government can’t maintain “law and order.” He deposes the Social Democrats and appoints himself Reich Commissioner for Prussia.

The SPD once swore to defend the republic against any coup d’etat, from the right or the left. German workers wait for a call to action. The SPD promise to appeal Papen’s coup to the courts. Nothing else happens.

The KPD calls for a general strike. Of course, the KPD’s great “Red referendum” is used to ridicule it.

1932 July 31: Reichstag elections. Nazis are now Germany’s largest party.

1932 September 12: New Reichstag convenes. Papen thinks he can manipulate the Nazis, but they realize they don’t need him. Nazis support the Reichstag vote to censure the Hindenburg-imposed Papen regime (vote of 513 to 32). The Reichstag is dissolved and new elections called for November 6.


1932 November 6: Reichstag election. Nazi faithful have begun to tire of Hitler’s political maneuvers to gain power carefully. Morale drops. In the election, Nazis lose two million votes. Critically: total Nazi vote is now less than the combined SPD-KPD vote. But this is lost on the Comintern and KPD. This would turn out to be the last “free” election of Weimar Germany—and the Nazis failed to get their majority.

1932 November 17: Papen and cabinet resign.

1932 December 2: Hindenburg appoints “social general” Schleicher Chancellor. Schleicher tries split left (trade-union bureaucrats break with the SPD) and right (dissident “left Nazis” under Gregor Strasser break with Hitler).

1933 January 30: Hindenburg appoints Hitler as Chancellor. Papen is Vice-Chancellor. Hitler agrees to take only three of 11 cabinet posts. Trotsky expects worker parties will resist Hitler and mobilize. SPD leaders say “Hitler’s appointment” is constitutional and forbid worker actions that might upset the Nazis. The KPD, on the other hand, is still denouncing the SPD.

1933 March 5: Hitler gets Hindenburg to dissolve parliament. In the run-up to new election, KPD meetings are banned. KDP press are shut down. Nazis finally take control of Prussia and its nationwide police force and flooded it with storm troopers. The terror begins.


1933 February 27: Nazis start fire in the Reichstag and blame it on Communists.

1933 February 28: President Hindenburg suspends Constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, press, assembly, association. Thousands of KPD and SPD officials are arrested. Only the Nazis and Nationalists are permitted to campaign in the last week before the election.

1933 March 5: Reichstag elections. Even with all this “constitutional” oppression, the Nazis still couldn’t get a majority. But it was still game over. KPD calls for national strikes.

1933 March 23: Citing the Constitution, Hitler asks new Reichstag to grant him dictatorial power. This requires a two-thirds Reichstag vote. As KPD deputies are jailed or leaving the country, Hitler’s demand is granted (441 to 84). Liberal and conservative parties vote for it. Only the remaing Social Democrats vote against it.

1933 April 1: Stalinists Comintern deludes itself about an expected proletarian revolution soon to follow Hitler’s victory. While it dreams, the KPD is annihilated.

1933 May 1: May Day. The remaining SPD is a different beast than Frederick Engels had known. This creature supports Hitler’s various labor “reorganizations” and encourages workers to march in the Nazi “National Day of Labor” parade May 1.

1933 May 2: Nazis take over the trade-union movement and send labor leaders to concentration camps.