CHAPTERÂ TWELVE The Problem of Labor Unions
In our attempt to study those methods that could most quickly and easily open the way for our movement to the hearts of the masses, we always encountered the objection that the worker would never belong entirely to us as long as the representation of his professional and economic interests remained in the hands of individuals and political organizations of different orientations.
In the first part of this book, I expressed my opinion on the nature, purpose, and desirability of labor unions. I held the view that as long as the employer’s attitude toward the worker remains unchanged—whether through the effect of (generally unsuccessful) state protectionist measures or through the influence of a new education—the worker will have no other recourse than to take it upon himself to defend his interests, basing himself on the right he regards as an equally necessary factor in the economic life of the nation. I also emphasized that this was absolutely in the best interest of the entire community if such a procedure could save the nation as a whole from the grave damage resulting from social injustices. This need, I also said, must be considered justified as long as, among employers, there were men not only lacking any sense of duty, but also lacking understanding of even the most basic human rights.
*
* *
There are four questions we have asked ourselves in this regard: I)
Are labor unions necessary?
In my view, given the current state of affairs, they are indispensable and are among the nation’s most important economic institutions.
- Should the NSDAP organize workers’ unions itself or induce its members to participate in any form of trade union activity?
The National Socialist movement, which sees the goal of its struggle in the establishment of the racial-National Socialist State, must be convinced that all the institutions of this future State must necessarily emerge from within the movement itself. It would be the greatest error to believe that the mere possession of power, without first counting on a certain contingent of men prepared, above all ideologically, will make it possible ipso ipso and from nothing to implement a new plan of reorganization. Here too, the principle that the external form, easily created mechanically, is always less important than the spirit embodied in this form, has intrinsic value.
Therefore, one must not imagine that projects aimed at restructuring the state will suddenly be plucked from a portfolio and then implemented from “above” by mere decree. One can, of course, experiment, but the result will not be viable and will often appear as nothing more than a “stillborn child.” This reminds me of the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to present the German people, along with that constitution, with a new flag that bore no relation to the history of our people over the past fifty years.
The National Socialist state, too, must protect itself from similar experiments. It can only emerge from a long-standing organization that embodies the spirit of its very essence, to create a vital National Socialist state.
Of course, this lofty perspective already compels our movement to recognize the need to develop its own activity when it comes to the trade union issue.
- What should be the nature of a National Socialist labor union? What are its goals and what are our obligations?
The trade union institution within nationalism is not an organ of class struggle, but rather a spokesperson for professional representation. The National Socialist state does not distinguish between “classes” and recognizes, in the political sense, only citizens with absolutely equal rights and, consequently, equal general duties; and, along with the citizen, the subject who lacks political rights altogether.
Trade unionism in itself is not synonymous with “social antagonism”; it is Marxism that has made it an instrument of its class struggle. Marxism thereby created the weapon that international Jewry employs to destroy the economic basis of free and independent national states, thus achieving the devastation of their national industries and trade, ultimately tending to enslave autonomous peoples to place them at the service of Jewish finance, which knows no borders between states.
National Socialist syndicalism, on the other hand, has, thanks to the organized concentration of certain groups of elements participating in the nation’s economic process, the duty to increase the security of the national economy and to reinforce it by the corrective eradication of all those anomalies that, in the end, exert a destructive influence on the national organism, damaging the vitality of the people and thus that of the State itself, thereby determining the catastrophe of the entire economy.
The National Socialist worker must understand that the prosperity of the national economy means his own material happiness. For his part, the National Socialist employer must be convinced that the happiness and contentment of his workers are a prerequisite for the existence and growth of his own economic capacity. Both National Socialist employers and workers are the representatives and administrators of the entire national community.
For National Socialist syndicalism, the strike is a resource that can and must be employed only as long as there is no National Socialist racial state, charged with ensuring the protection and well-being of all, instead of fomenting struggle between the two major groups—employers and workers—the consequence of which, in the form of a decline in production, always harms the interests of the community. The Chambers of Commerce are responsible for ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of national economic activity, addressing needs and correcting anomalies. What today involves a struggle of millions will tomorrow find a solution in the professional chambers and a central economic parliament. Workers and employers will no longer clash with each other in the struggle over wages and rates, which harms both, and by common agreement, they will resolve their differences before a single body.
superior imbued with the luminous motto of the good of the community and the State.
The objective of National Socialist trade unionism lies in education and preparation for that end, which can be defined as follows: The common work of all for the preservation and security of our people and their State, according to the aptitudes and energies of each, developed within the national community.
- How will we organize workers’ unions?
It is generally easier to build on new land than on old land where similar work already exists. Of course, it would be absurd to imagine a National Socialist labor union alongside other labor unions of a different nature. Nor is there the possibility of understanding or compromise between similar tendencies, but only the rule of absolute and exclusive law.
There were two ways of achieving this affinity: a) One could found one’s own syndicalist institution and then begin the struggle against Marxist international syndicalism, or b) Penetrate into the heart of the Marxist unions and try to saturate them with the new spirit and transform them into instruments of the new ideology.
Here it was necessary to apply the experience that, in life, it is preferable to leave something aside, rather than do it poorly or half-heartedly due to a lack of appropriate elements.
I flatly rejected all experiments that assumed failure. I would have considered it a crime to deduct from the worker’s miserable wages a certain sum intended for the promotion of an institution whose usefulness, for the benefit of its members, I was not convinced of.
In 1922, we proceeded according to this criterion. Other parties believed they could solve the problem by founding workers’ unions. We were criticized, as the clearest sign of our erroneous and limited conception, for not having such an organization. But these syndicalist groups soon disappeared, so the final result was the same as in our case, except that we hadn’t defrauded anyone or deceived ourselves.
