[D66] The Necessity of a Proletarian Revolution in the Age of Nuclear Threat

[René Oudeweg]

The Necessity of a Proletarian Revolution in the Age of Nuclear Threat

Marx, Anders, and the Contemporary NATO–Russia Conflict

Introduction

Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, the threat of 
nuclear escalation has once again become an explicit presence in global 
political discourse. Both Russian leaders and NATO officials have 
repeatedly referred to the nuclear capabilities of their respective 
blocs. This rhetoric painfully recalls the Cold War and raises the 
question to what extent the nuclear threat is a contingent factor of 
geopolitical power struggles, or rather a structural consequence of the 
modern world order.

This essay argues that the nuclear threat is not the accidental product 
of current tensions but a necessary outcome of the capitalist mode of 
production and the international state system that arises from it. Karl 
Marx’s analysis of capital accumulation and imperialism uncovers the 
foundations of war and militarization. Günther Anders’ reflections on 
the atomic age then show that this dynamic is not merely political but 
existential: humanity possesses the technical means for total 
self-destruction without the moral or imaginative capacity to grasp the 
consequences. From this dual perspective, it becomes clear that reforms 
within capitalism may temporarily postpone the nuclear threat but can 
never fundamentally abolish it. Only a proletarian revolution can create 
the conditions for a world order in which nuclear armament is rendered 
both unnecessary and impossible.

The central research question is therefore: Why is a proletarian 
revolution, in Marx’s sense, necessary to structurally abolish the 
nuclear threat between NATO and Russia, and how can Anders’ philosophy 
clarify this necessity?

1. Marx and the Logic of War in Capitalism

Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production in Capital (1867) 
demonstrates that the system’s driving force is endless accumulation. 
The capitalist is compelled to reinvest, innovate, and expand market 
share in order to survive in competition. This logic is not limited to 
individual firms but translates into the international arena, where 
states struggle for resources, markets, and geopolitical influence.

Although Marx could not foresee the development of nuclear weapons, he 
already showed in the 19th century how the drive for expansion and 
competition leads to colonial conquests and war. In the Communist 
Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels emphasized that the bourgeoisie “by 
the exploitation of the world market, has given a cosmopolitan character 
to production and consumption in every country” – a process that 
necessarily generates conflicts between states. The military apparatus 
functions as the instrument by which the ruling class defends its interests.

The NATO–Russia dynamic can be understood as a continuation of this 
mechanism. Russia seeks to defend its sphere of influence and resource 
interests, while NATO attempts to expand its own economic and strategic 
dominance. Nuclear arsenals are not a residual relic of the Cold War but 
the logical culmination of capitalist competition: the ultimate 
guarantee of power and deterrence.

2. Günther Anders and the Existential Dimension of the Nuclear Threat

Günther Anders (1902–1992), philosopher and cultural critic, offered one 
of the sharpest analyses of the nuclear threat in his work The 
Obsolescence of Human Beings (Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, 1956). 
Anders argued that humanity in the atomic age faces a fundamental gap 
between Herstellen (what we can technically produce) and Vorstellen 
(what we can imagine). We can produce nuclear weapons capable of killing 
millions, but we cannot truly imagine the reality of this destruction.

Anders called this discrepancy “apocalyptic blindness” 
(Apokalypse-Blindheit): a structural inability to morally and 
psychologically process our own destructive power. Nuclear weapons thus 
become normalized: they exist as a permanent threat but remain beyond 
the horizon of our practical responsibility. His famous statement “We 
are apocalyptically blind” encapsulates this paradox.

What Anders reveals is that the nuclear threat is not merely a political 
or military issue but an existential condition of modern humanity. In 
conjunction with Marx, we can see that this condition arises because 
technological development under capitalism is driven by profit and power 
rather than human needs. As long as this logic dominates, the production 
of increasingly destructive weapons will continue, regardless of ethical 
or existential considerations.

3. The Illusion of Reform

One might object that international treaties and institutions can 
contain the nuclear threat. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), the 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START), and the Intermediate-Range 
Nuclear Forces Treaty (1987) are examples of attempts to regulate 
nuclear weapons. Yet these agreements have never achieved full 
disarmament. As soon as geopolitical interests shift, agreements are 
ignored or abandoned – such as the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty 
(2002) and the collapse of the INF Treaty (2019).

This confirms Marx’s insight that reforms within the capitalist world 
order are inherently unstable. The underlying dynamics of competition 
and power politics compel states to maintain or expand their military 
capacities, regardless of treaties or moral obligations. Anders would 
add that our “apocalyptic blindness” means that catastrophe, while 
thinkable, remains practically unimaginable – and therefore is 
repeatedly displaced by short-term interests.

4. Revolution as a Necessary Break

In The Civil War in France (1871), Marx analyzed the Paris Commune as a 
historical moment in which the working class not only attacked the 
existing state power but began to create a new type of state. For Marx, 
this was exemplary of the necessary proletarian revolution: a 
revolutionary rupture that places the means of production into common 
ownership, thereby abolishing the basis of class society and imperialist 
competition.

Applied to the nuclear question, this means that only a revolutionary 
transformation can prevent technological progress from being continually 
harnessed for destructive purposes. A socialist world order, based on 
collective planning and production for human needs, would lack the 
structural drive toward nuclear armament. Anders underscores that our 
current order places human existence permanently under the threat of 
annihilation; the revolutionary rupture is therefore not merely 
desirable but existentially necessary.

5. Contemporary Relevance: NATO, Russia, and the New Cold War

The renewed tensions between NATO and Russia demonstrate that the 
nuclear issue is not merely a relic of the 20th century but an integral 
feature of 21st-century geopolitics. NATO expands its sphere of 
influence up to Russia’s borders, while Russia seeks to preserve its 
strategic depth. Both camps invoke defensive motives, but in fact this 
is a structural rivalry of the type Marx already analyzed: a struggle 
over markets, resources, and hegemony.

Nuclear weapons function here as the ultimate instrument of pressure. 
The threat of their use enhances the power position of both blocs and 
renders diplomacy precarious. That humanity in 2022 once again openly 
discussed “possible nuclear escalation” demonstrates the undiminished 
validity of Anders’ diagnosis of apocalyptic blindness.

Conclusion

The nuclear threat between NATO and Russia cannot be adequately 
understood as a mere geopolitical conflict. From Marx’s perspective, it 
is a necessary outcome of the capitalist logic of expansion and 
competition. From Anders’ perspective, it reveals an existential 
blindness that paralyzes our capacity to act. Together, these analyses 
show that reforms and treaties can never fundamentally abolish the threat.

The only real way out is proletarian revolution: the radical 
transformation of the mode of production and the abolition of class 
society. Only in a world order where production is oriented toward human 
needs rather than profit maximization can the nuclear threat disappear 
sustainably. Humanity therefore faces a stark and inescapable choice: 
either the continuation of a system that perpetually balances us on the 
edge of annihilation, or a revolutionary rupture that opens the 
possibility of a peaceful future.

References

Anders, G. (1956). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Vol. I: Über die 
Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Anders, G. (1980). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Vol. II: Über die 
Zerstörung des Lebens im Zeitalter der dritten industriellen Revolution. 
Munich: C.H. Beck.

Losurdo, D. (2016). War and Revolution: Rethinking the Twentieth 
Century. London: Verso.

Marx, K. (1867). Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. I. 
Hamburg: Otto Meissner.

Marx, K. (1871). The Civil War in France. London.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. London.

Prieto, A. (2022). Nuclear Politics and the Return of the Cold War. 
Cambridge: Polity.

Sandle, M. (2019). “The Legacy of the INF Treaty and the Future of Arms 
Control.” Journal of Strategic Studies, 42(5), 635–652.