CHAPTER EIGHT The beginning of my political activity
At the end of November 1918, I moved to Munich to rejoin the reserve battalion of my regiment, which was now under the “Soldiers’ Council.” The atmosphere there was so repugnant to me that I decided to retire as soon as possible. Accompanied by a loyal war comrade, Schmiedt Ernst, I went to Trauenstein and remained there until the camp was dissolved.
In March 1919 we returned to Munich.
The situation in this city had become untenable and was irresistibly inclined toward the continuation of the revolutionary movement. Eisner’s death precipitated events, and a temporary Soviet dictatorship, or rather a Jewish hegemony, was finally established, just as the promoters of the revolution had originally dreamed of. During this time, countless plans crossed my mind.
During the new dictatorship, my actions quickly earned me the ill will of the Central Council. Indeed, on the morning of April 27, 1919, I was supposed to be arrested, but the three men charged with carrying out the order lacked the courage to face my ready carbine and left as they had come.
A few days after the liberation of Munich, I was assigned to the commission of inquiry into the revolutionary events of the 2nd Infantry Regiment.
This was my first performance of a more or less political nature.
A few weeks later, I received orders to participate in a course for members of the armed forces. In this course, soldiers were to acquire certain fundamentals inherent to the concept of citizenship. For me, this organization was important because it gave me the opportunity to meet some like-minded comrades with whom I was able to exchange in-depth ideas about the prevailing situation. Without exception, we all shared the firm conviction that it would not be the November crime parties—that is, the Center Party and the
Social Democrats were the ones who would save Germany from imminent ruin; on the other hand, we also knew that the so-called “burgh-national” associations would never be able to repair, even with the best will, what had already happened.
Hence, the idea of forming a new party arose in our small circle. The principles that inspired us then were the same ones that would later be practically applied in the organization of the “German Workers’ Party.” The name of the movement to be created had to offer, from the outset, the possibility of reaching out to the broad masses, for without this condition, all work would be fruitless and pointless. This is how the name “Social-Revolutionary Party” came to mind, and this because the tendencies of the new organization truly represented a social revolution.
The fundamental reason, however, lay in the following: Although I had previously engaged in the study of economic problems, my interest in them remained limited only to the limits corresponding to the analysis of the social question itself. Shortly thereafter, this scope was broadened by my examination of the Reich’s alliance policy, which was largely the result of an erroneous assessment of the national economy, as well as a lack of a clear calculation of the possible basic conditions for the subsistence of the German people in the future. All these ideas rested on the criterion that, in any case, capital was nothing more than the result of labor and that, therefore, labor itself was subject to the fluctuations of all those factors that promote or hinder human activity. It was thought that the national importance of capital lay precisely in this, which, in turn, depended so entirely on the greatness, autonomy and power of the State, that is, of the nation, that this sole subordination of capital to a sovereign and free State would oblige capital to act on its part in favor of that sovereignty, power, capacity, etc., of the nation.
Under these conditions, the state’s mission with respect to capital was relatively simple and easy: it was to ensure that capital remained at the service of the state and did not attempt to become the master of the nation. This way of thinking could be circumscribed within two limits: on the one hand, fostering a vital, autonomous national economy; and on the other, guaranteeing the social rights of the worker.
At first, I had not been able to distinguish with the desired clarity the difference between capital itself, the result of productive labor, and that capital whose existence and nature rest exclusively on speculation. I was therefore missing an initial suggestion that had not yet reached me.
I finally received this suggestion, and in a very comprehensive way, thanks to one of the several lecturers who participated in the aforementioned course of the 2nd Infantry Regiment: Gottfried Feder.
After listening to Feder’s first lecture, I was convinced I had found the key to one of the essential premises for founding a new party.
*
* *
In my opinion, Feder’s merit lay in having been able to clearly define the speculative and economic nature of bank capital and the stock market, and in having, at the same time, revealed the eternal condition of their raison d’être: percentage interest. Feder’s expositions were so true to the fundamental problems that his critics questioned less the theoretical accuracy of the idea than the possibility of its theoretical application.
It is not the task of the theorist to establish the possible degree of realization of an idea, but rather to know how to articulate this very idea; that is to say, the theorist must be less concerned with the path to be followed than with the goal pursued. What is decisive, then, is the correctness of an idea in principle and not the difficulty of its realization. The theorist of an ideological movement specifies its goal; the politician aspires to realize it. The former subordinates his way of thinking to eternal truth, while the latter subjects his way of acting to practical reality. In Gottfried Feder’s first lecture on the “abolition of the slavery of interest,” I immediately realized that this was a theoretical truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The radical separation between stock market capital and the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without, at the same time, compromising the basis of an autonomous national preservation in the struggle against capital. I sensed the
development of Germany, so as not to know that the most intense struggle must no longer be directed against enemy peoples, but against international capital. In Feder’s words, I discovered a magnificent motto for this future struggle. The course of subsequent events must have proved to us how correct our foresight at that time was. The enlightened among our bourgeois politicians have ceased to mock us; they themselves see today—unless they are deliberate falsifiers of the truth—that international stock exchange capitalism was not only the greatest instigator of the war, but that even now, in the post-war period, it continues its constant efforts to make peace a hell.
For me and for all true National Socialists, there is only one doctrine: that of nationality and homeland.
The objective for which we must fight is to ensure the existence and growth of our race and our people; the sustenance of its children and the preservation of the purity of its blood; the freedom and independence of the homeland, so that our people may fulfill the mission that the Supreme Creator has reserved for them.
I once again began to assimilate knowledge and penetrated the content of the Jewish Karl Marx’s work throughout his life. His book “Capital” began to become understandable to me, as did the struggle of social democracy against the national economy, a struggle that pursues no other objective than to prepare the ground for the hegemony of international capitalism.
*
* *
In yet another sense these courses were of great importance to me.
One day I took part in the discussion, refuting one of the participants who felt obliged to argue at length in favor of the Jews. The vast majority of the course members present approved of my point of view. The result was that a few days later I was assigned to a Munich garrison regiment as a “training officer.”
Troop discipline at that time still left much to be desired. The consequences of the demoralizing period of the “Soldiers’ Council” were still being felt. Only gradually and carefully could military discipline and subordination be re-instilled, instead of
“Voluntary” obedience—as it was humorously called in Kurt Eisner’s pigsty days—the troops had to learn to think and feel nationally and patriotically. Such was the orientation in my new field of activity. I began my work with enthusiasm and affection.
And I was successful: in the course of my lectures, I was able to bring many hundreds, perhaps thousands of comrades back to the path of their people and their homeland. I “nationalized” the troops and thus was able to consolidate the spirit of discipline in general. Here too, I had a group of comrades devoted to my ideas who later helped me lay the foundations of the new movement.
