Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement
Chapter XII: The Trade-Union Question
Owing to the rapid growth of the movement, in 1922 we felt compelled to take
a definite stand on a question which has not been fully solved even yet.
In our efforts to discover the quickest and easiest way for the movement
to reach the heart of the broad masses we were always confronted with the
objection that the worker could never completely belong to us while his interests
in the purely vocational and economic sphere were cared for by a political
organization conducted by men whose principles were quite different from
ours.
That was quite a serious objection. The general belief was that a workman
engaged in some trade or other could not exist if he did not belong to a
trade union. Not only were his professional interests thus protected but
a guarantee of permanent employment was simply inconceivable without membership
in a trade union. The majority of the workers were in the trades unions.
Generally speaking, the unions had successfully conducted the battle for
the establishment of a definite scale of wages and had concluded agreements
which guaranteed the worker a steady income. Undoubtedly the workers in the
various trades benefited by the results of that campaign and, for honest
men especially, conflicts of conscience must have arisen if they took the
wages which had been assured through the struggle fought by the trades unions
and if at the same time the men themselves withdrew from the fight.
It was difficult to discuss this problem with the average bourgeois employer.
He had no understanding (or did not wish to have any) for either the material
or moral side of the question. Finally he declared that his own economic
interests were in principle opposed to every kind of organization which joined
together the workmen that were dependent on him. Hence it was for the most
part impossible to bring these bourgeois employers to take an impartial view
of the situation. Here, therefore, as in so many other cases, it was necessary
to appeal to disinterested outsiders who would not be subject to the temptation
of fixing their attention on the trees and failing to see the forest. With
a little good will on their part, they could much more easily understand
a state of affairs which is of the highest importance for our present and
future existence.
In the first volume of this book I have already expressed my views on the
nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions. There I took up the standpoint
that unless measures are undertaken by the State (usually futile in such
cases) or a new ideal is introduced in our education, which would change
the attitude of the employer towards the worker, no other course would be
open to the latter except to defend his own interests himself by appealing
to his equal rights as a contracting party within the economic sphere of
the nation's existence. I stated further that this would conform to the interests
of the national community if thereby social injustices could be redressed
which otherwise would cause serious damage to the whole social structure.
I stated, moreover, that the worker would always find it necessary to undertake
this protective action as long as there were men among the employers who
had no sense of their social obligations nor even of the most elementary
human rights. And I concluded by saying that if such self-defence be considered
necessary its form ought to be that of an association made up of the workers
themselves on the basis of trades unions.
This was my general idea and it remained the same in 1922. But a clear and
precise formula was still to be discovered. We could not be satisfied with
merely understanding the problem. It was necessary to come to some conclusions
that could be put into practice. The following questions had to be answered:
(1) Are trade unions necessary?
(2) Should the German National Socialist Labour Party itself operate on a
trade unionist basis or have its members take part in trade unionist activities
in some form or other?
(3) What form should a National Socialist Trades Union take? What are the
tasks confronting us and the ends we must try to attain?
(4) How can we establish trade unions for such tasks and aims?
I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the
present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense
with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important
institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important
in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national
political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs
satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole
nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.
Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones
for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers
representing the various professions and occupations.
The second question is also easy to answer. If the trade unionist movement
is important, then it is clear that National Socialism ought to take a definite
stand on that question, not only theoretically but also in practice. But
how? That is more difficult to see clearly.
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National
Socialist People's State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle
that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement
itself. It is a great mistake to believe that by acquiring possession of
supreme political power we can bring about a definite reorganization, suddenly
starting from nothing, without the help of a certain reserve stock of men
who have been trained beforehand, especially in the spirit of the movement.
Here also the principle holds good that the spirit is always more important
than the external form which it animates; since this form can be created
mechanically and quickly. For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed
on an organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle
can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary
for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest cell of the State
organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives, the leadership principle
must have a body of men who have passed through a process of selection lasting
over several years, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life
and thus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practical effect.
It is out of the question to think that a scheme for the Constitution of
a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at a moment's notice and
'introduced' by imperative orders from above. One may try that kind of thing
but the result will always be something that has not sufficient vitality
to endure. It will be like a stillborn infant. The idea of it calls to mind
the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to impose on the German
people a new Constitution and a new flag, neither of which had any inner
relation to the vicissitudes of our people's history during the last half
century.
The National Socialist State must guard against all such experiments. It
must grow out of an organization which has already existed for a long time.
This organization must possess National Socialist life in itself, so that
finally it may be able to establish a National Socialist State that will
be a living reality.
As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the
administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and
professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent
vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National
Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the
National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are
to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence
all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary
to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to
remain completely lifeless.
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist
Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist
policy.
It must do this for a further reason, namely because a real National Socialist
education for the employer as well as for the employee, in the spirit of
a mutual co-operation within the common framework of the national community,
cannot be secured by theoretical instruction, appeals and exhortations, but
through the struggles of daily life. In this spirit and through this spirit
the movement must educate the several large economic groups and bring them
closer to one another under a wider outlook. Without this preparatory work
it would be sheer illusion to hope that a real national community can be
brought into existence. The great ideal represented by its philosophy of
life and for which the movement fights can alone form a general style of
thought steadily and slowly. And this style will show that the new state
of things rests on foundations that are internally sound and not merely an
external façade.
Hence the movement must adopt a positive attitude towards the trade-unionist
idea. But it must go further than this. For the enormous number of members
and followers of the trade-unionist movement it must provide a practical
education which will meet the exigencies of the coming National Socialist
State.
The answer to the third question follows from what has been already said.
The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class warfare,
but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The National
Socialist State recognizes no 'classes'. But, under the political aspect,
it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations
corresponding thereto. And, side by side with these, it recognizes subjects
of the State who have no political rights whatsoever.
According to the National Socialist concept, it is not the task of the trades
union to band together certain men within the national community and thus
gradually transform these men into a class, so as to use them in a conflict
against other groups similarly organized within the national community. We
certainly cannot assign this task to the trades union as such. This was the
task assigned to it the moment it became a fighting weapon in the hands of
the Marxists. The trades union is not naturally an instrument of class warfare;
but the Marxists transformed it into an instrument for use in their own class
struggle. They created the economic weapon which the international Jew uses
for the purpose of destroying the economic foundations of free and independent
national States, for ruining their national industry and trade and thereby
enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world-finance, which transcends all
State boundaries.
In contradistinction to this, the National Socialist Trades Union must organize
definite groups and those who participate in the economic life of the nation
and thus enhance the security of the national economic system itself, reinforcing
it by the elimination of all those anomalies which ultimately exercise a
destructive influence on the social body of the nation, damaging the vital
forces of the national community, prejudicing the welfare of the State and,
by no means as a last consequence, bringing evil and destruction on economic
life itself.
Therefore in the hands of the National Socialist Trades Union the strike
is not an instrument for disturbing and dislocating the national production,
but for increasing it and making it run smoothly, by fighting against all
those annoyances which by reason of their unsocial character hinder efficiency
in business and thereby hamper the existence of the whole nation. For individual
efficiency stands always in casual relation to the general social and juridical
position of the individual in the economic process. Individual efficiency
is also the sole root of the conviction that the economic prosperity of the
nation must necessarily redound to the benefit of the individual citizen.
The National Socialist employee will have to recognize the fact that the
economic prosperity of the nation brings with it his own material happiness.
The National Socialist employer must recognize that the happiness and contentment
of his employees are necessary pre-requisites for the existence and development
of his own economic prosperity.
National Socialist workers and employers are both together the delegates
and mandatories of the whole national community. The large measure of personal
freedom which is accorded to them for their activities must be explained
by the fact that experience has shown that the productive powers of the
individual are more enhanced by being accorded a generous measure of freedom
than by coercion from above. Moreover, by according this freedom we give
free play to the natural process of selection which brings forward the ablest
and most capable and most industrious. For the National Socialist Trades
Union, therefore, the strike is a means that may, and indeed must, be resorted
to as long as there is not a National Socialist State yet. But when that
State is established it will, as a matter of course, abolish the mass struggle
between the two great groups made up of employers and employees respectively,
a struggle which has always resulted in lessening the national production
and injuring the national community. In place of this struggle, the National
Socialist State will take over the task of caring for and defending the rights
of all parties concerned. It will be the duty of the Economic Chamber itself
to keep the national economic system in smooth working order and to remove
whatever defects or errors it may suffer from. Questions that are now fought
over through a quarrel that involves millions of people will then be settled
in the Representative Chambers of Trades and Professions and in the Central
Economic Parliament. Thus employers and employees will no longer find themselves
drawn into a mutual conflict over wages and hours of work, always to the
detriment of their mutual interests. But they will solve these problems together
on a higher plane, where the welfare of the national community and of the
State will be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations.
Here again, as everywhere else, the inflexible principle must be observed,
that the interests of the country must come before party interests.
The task of the National Socialist Trades Union will be to educate and prepare
its members to conform to these ideals. That task may be stated as follows:
All must work together for the maintenance and security of our people and
the People's State, each one according to the abilities and powers with which
Nature has endowed him and which have been developed and trained by the national
community.
Our fourth question was: How shall we establish trades unions for such tasks
and aims? That is far more difficult to answer.
Generally speaking, it is easier to establish something in new territory
than in old territory which already has its established institutions. In
a district where there is no existing business of a special character one
can easily establish a new business of this character. But it is more difficult
if the same kind of enterprise already exists and it is most difficult of
all when the conditions are such that only one enterprise of this kind can
prosper. For here the promoters of the new enterprise find themselves confronted
not only with the problem of introducing their own business but also that
of how to bring about the destruction of the other business already existing
in the district, so that the new enterprise may be able to exist.
It would be senseless to have a National Socialist Trades Union side by side
with other trades unions. For this Trades Union must be thoroughly imbued
with a feeling for the ideological nature of its task and of the resulting
obligation not to tolerate other similar or hostile institutions. It must
also insist that itself alone is necessary, to the exclusion of all the rest.
It can come to no arrangement and no compromise with kindred tendencies but
must assert its own absolute and exclusive right.
There were two ways which might lead to such a development:
(1) We could establish our Trades Union and then gradually take up the fight
against the Marxist International Trades Union.
(2) Or we could enter the Marxist Trades Union and inculcate a new spirit
in it, with the idea of transforming it into an instrument in the service
of the new ideal.
The first way was not advisable, by reason of the fact that our financial
situation was still the cause of much worry to us at that time and our resources
were quite slender. The effects of the inflation were steadily spreading
and made the particular situation still more difficult for us, because in
those years one could scarcely speak of any material help which the trades
unions could extend to their members. From this point of view, there was
no reason why the individual worker should pay his dues to the union. Even
the Marxist unions then existing were already on the point of collapse until,
as the result of Herr Cuno's enlightened Ruhr policy, millions were suddenly
poured into their coffers. This so-called 'national' Chancellor of the Reich
should go down in history as the Redeemer of the Marxist trades unions.
We could not count on similar financial facilities. And nobody could be induced
to enter a new Trades Union which, on account of its financial weakness,
could not offer him the slightest material benefit. On the other hand, I
felt bound absolutely to guard against the creation of such an organization
which would only be a shelter for shirkers of the more or less intellectual
type.
At that time the question of personnel played the most important role. I
did not have a single man whom I might call upon to carry out this important
task. Whoever could have succeeded at that time in overthrowing the Marxist
unions to make way for the triumph of the National Socialist corporative
idea, which would then take the place of the ruinous class warfare –
such a person would be fit to rank with the very greatest men our nation
has produced and his bust should be installed in the Valhalla at Regensburg
for the admiration of posterity.
But I knew of no person who could qualify for such a pedestal.
In this connection we must not be led astray by the fact that the international
trades unions are conducted by men of only mediocre significance, for when
those unions were founded there was nothing else of a similar kind already
in existence. To-day the National Socialist Movement must fight against a
monster organization which has existed for a long time, rests on gigantic
foundations and is carefully constructed even in the smallest details. An
assailant must always exercise more intelligence than the defender, if he
is to overthrow the latter. The Marxist trade-unionist citadel may be governed
today by mediocre leaders, but it cannot be taken by assault except through
the dauntless energy and genius of a superior leader on the other side. If
such a leader cannot be found it is futile to struggle with Fate and even
more foolish to try to overthrow the existing state of things without being
able to construct a better in its place.
Here one must apply the maxim that in life it is often better to allow something
to go by the board rather than try to half do it or do it badly, owing to
a lack of suitable means.
To this we must add another consideration, which is not at all of a demagogic
character. At that time I had, and I still have today, a firmly rooted
conviction that when one is engaged in a great ideological struggle in the
political field it would be a grave mistake to mix up economic questions
with this struggle in its earlier stages. This applies particularly to our
German people. For if such were to happen in their case the economic struggle
would immediately distract the energy necessary for the political fight.
Once the people are brought to believe that they can buy a little house with
their savings they will devote themselves to the task of increasing their
savings and no spare time will be left to them for the political struggle
against those who, in one way or another, will one day secure possession
of the pennies that have been saved. Instead of participating in the political
conflict on behalf of the opinions and convictions which they have been brought
to accept they will now go further with their 'settlement' idea and in the
end they will find themselves for the most part sitting on the ground amidst
all the stools.
To-day the National Socialist Movement is at the beginning of its struggle.
In great part it must first of all shape and develop its ideals. It must
employ every ounce of its energy in the struggle to have its great ideal
accepted, and the success of this effort is not conceivable unless the combined
energies of the movement be entirely at the service of this struggle.
To-day we have a classical example of how the active strength of a people
becomes paralysed when that people is too much taken up with purely economic
problems.
The Revolution which took place in November 1918 was not made by the trades
unions, but it was carried out in spite of them. And the people of Germany
did not wage any political fight for the future of their country because
they thought that the future could be sufficiently secured by constructive
work in the economic field.
We must learn a lesson from this experience, because in our case the same
thing must happen under the same circumstances. The more the combined strength
of our movement is concentrated in the political struggle, the more confidently
may we count on being successful along our whole front. But if we busy ourselves
prematurely with trade unionist problems, settlement problems, etc., it will
be to the disadvantage of our own cause, taken as a whole. For, though these
problems may be important, they cannot be solved in an adequate manner until
we have political power in our hand and are able to use it in the service
of this idea. Until that day comes these problems can have only a paralysing
effect on the movement. And if it takes them up too soon they will only be
a hindrance in the effort to attain its own ideological aims. It may then
easily happen that trade unionist considerations will control the political
direction of the movement, instead of the ideological aims of the movement
directing the way that the trades unions are to take.
The movement and the nation can derive advantage from a National Socialist
trade unionist organization only if the latter be so thoroughly inspired
by National Socialist ideas that it runs no danger of falling into step behind
the Marxist movement. For a National Socialist Trades Union which would consider
itself only as a competitor against the Marxist unions would be worse than
none. It must declare war against the Marxist Trades Union, not only as an
organization but, above all, as an idea. It must declare itself hostile to
the idea of class and class warfare and, in place of this, it must declare
itself as the defender of the various occupational and professional interests
of the German people.
Considered from all these points of view it was not then advisable, nor is
it yet advisable, to think of founding our own Trades Union. That seemed
clear to me, at least until somebody appeared who was obviously called by
fate to solve this particular problem.
Therefore there remained only two possible ways. Either to recommend our
own party members to leave the trades unions in which they were enrolled
or to remain in them for the moment, with the idea of causing as much destruction
in them as possible.
In general, I recommended the latter alternative.
Especially in the year 1922-23 we could easily do that. For, during
the period of inflation, the financial advantages which might be reaped from
a trades union organization would be negligible, because we could expect
to enroll only a few members owing to the undeveloped condition of our movement.
The damage which might result from such a policy was all the greater because
its bitterest critics and opponents were to be found among the followers
of the National Socialist Party.
I had already entirely discountenanced all experiments which were destined
from the very beginning to be unsuccessful. I would have considered it criminal
to run the risk of depriving a worker of his scant earnings in order to help
an organization which, according to my inner conviction, could not promise
real advantages to its members.
Should a new political party fade out of existence one day nobody would be
injured thereby and some would have profited, but none would have a right
to complain. For what each individual contributes to a political movement
is given with the idea that it may ultimately come to nothing. But the man
who pays his dues to a trade union has the right to expect some guarantee
in return. If this is not done, then the directors of such a trade union
are swindlers or at least careless people who ought to be brought to a sense
of their responsibilities.
We took all these viewpoints into consideration before making our decision
in 1922. Others thought otherwise and founded trades unions. They upbraided
us for being short-sighted and failing to see into the future. But it did
not take long for these organizations to disappear and the result was what
would have happened in our own case. But the difference was that we should
have deceived neither ourselves nor those who believed in us.