# Mein Kampf (Stackpole Sons)/Volume 2/Chapter 12

12. The Union Question
The rapid growth of the movement compelled us in 1922 to make our position clear on a question which has not yet been fully solved.
In our attempts to study those methods which would quickly and easily appeal to the masses, we were always confronted with the objection that the working man would never completely belong to us as long as his purely professional and economic interests were represented by men holding a different opinion, and their respective organizations.
This objection had, of course, much in its favor. The worker who was employed by a concern could not exist, according to the general opinion, if he were not a member of a trade-union. Not only the interest of his particular occupation seemed to be thus protected, but his very position with the concern was possible only, in the long run, if he were a member of the union. The majority of the workers were members of trade-unions. These unions generally had fought for higher wages, and had concluded wage agreements which guaranteed to the worker a certain income. No doubt all workers of this particular concern profited as a result of the fights, and an honest man was bound to have pangs of conscience if he pocketed the wages fought for and obtained by the unions while he himself did not join the fight.
It was very difficult to discuss these problems with the average middle-class employers. They neither manifested (nor wanted to manifest) any understanding of the material or the moral side of the question. After all, because of what they consider their own economic interests, they are opposed from the very start to any organized union of their laborers. For this reason alone most of ​them cannot form an unbiased opinion. In this as in many cases we must turn to those who are disinterested and who do not succumb to the temptation of not being able to see the wood for the trees. With even a degree of good-will, they will be much more sympathetic toward a problem so vital to our present and future life, when viewed from any angle.
In the first volume I have already given my opinion in regard to the character, purpose and necessity of trade-unions. I then took the position that as long as the relationships of the employer to the employee is not changed, either by government decrees (which usually are of no effect), or by general education, the employee has no other choice than to claim his right to defend his own interests as one of the contracting parties in the economic life. I further emphasized that such a course would be perfectly in harmony with the interests of the whole community, if they were able to prevent grave social injustices that otherwise would lead to grave injuries of the entire community of a people. Furthermore I declared that such a necessity was likely to continue as long as there were men among the contractors who personally have no feeling either social duties or for the most elementary human rights. From this I drew the conclusion that should such a self-defense once be considered necessary, it would logically have to be in the form of uniting all workers in trade-unions.
This, my general opinion, had not changed even in 1922. However, a clear and precise definition of the attitude regarding these problems had now to be found. It was impossible to go on just being satisfied with the knowledge, but it was necessary to draw practical conclusions from it.
The following questions had to be answered:
1. Are trade-unions indispensable?
2. Should the N. S. D. A. P. itself take an active part in the trade-unions, or direct its members to participate in any form of such activities?
3. What must be the character of a National-Socialistic trade-union? What are our tasks, and what is its aim?
4. How can we establish such trade-unions?
​I believe that I have sufficiently answered the first question. It is my conviction that under the present circumstances we cannot dispense with the trade-unions. To the contrary, they are a part of the most important institutions of the national economic life. Their significance does not lie only in the social-political, but to a much larger extent in the general national-political domain. For a people whose masses enjoy the necessities of life as well as an education through an orderly trade-union movement will thereby be greatly strengthened in their entire power of resistance in the struggle for existence.
The trade-unions are indeed indispensable since they are the material for the future parliament of economics or the chamber of the guilds.
The second question can also be easily answered. If the trade-unions are important, then it is clear that National Socialism must not purly theoretically but also practically take a definite stand in regard to them; but how? That is a more difficult question.
The National-Socialist movement, which is working with one goal in mind: the National-Socialist National State must not entertain any doubts that all future institutions of this coming State must grow out of the movement itself. It is a big mistake to believe that all of a sudden, with nothing in hand but the possession of power, a definite reorganization could be brought about, without having previously provided for a certain basic group of men who are trained along the lines of our conviction. Even in this case the principle obtains that, more important than the outward form,—which can easily be created mechanically—is always the spirit which fills such a form. For instance, one can command dictatorially that the principle of leadership be ingrafted in a state organism.
However, it will only live if it has evolved from the smallest beginnings and gradually developed itself, gaining in the course of many years by means of the continuous selection, which is effected incessantly by the hard realities of life, the number of leaders necessary in order to carry out this principle.
Therefore, we should not believe it possible to suddenly pull ​out of a briefcase the outlines for a new state constitution which could then be “introduced” through pressure from above, though such attempts are being made, but the result is bound to die or is already a stillborn child. That reminds me of the constitution of Weimar, and of the attempt to treat the German people along with a new constitution also to a new flag, which was in no way in itself related to the experiences of our people during the last half century.
The National-Socialist State, too, must be careful not to make similar experiments. It can, when the time comes, develop only out of an organization that has been in existence for a considerable time. This organization must possess the National-Socialist life as its element from the beginning, in order to be able to create a living National-Socialist State.
As has been emphasized, the germ-cells for the chambers of economics will have to be found in the various representative bodies of the trade-unions, therefore especially in the trade-unions. If, however, the future chamber of the guilds and the central parliament of economics are to represent a National-Socialist institution, then these important germ-cells too must be the agents of a National-Socialist conviction and conception. The institutions of the movement are to be incorporated into the State, but the State is unable to suddenly produce corresponding institutions out of nothing by the power of magic, if they are to be more than lifeless formations.
From this highest viewpoint alone, the National-Socialist movement must acknowledge the necessity of engaging itself in activities along the lines of trade-unions.
It must do so for a further reason. A genuine National-Socialist education of employers as well as of employees, with the object of making them both members of the people’s community within its common framework, is not effected by means of theoretical instruction, appeals or admonitions, but by the struggle of the daily life. In it and through it the movement must educate the various large economic groups in order to get them closer together in regard to the important viewpoints. Without such ​preliminary work all hope for the development of a future real people’s community is but a mere illusion. Only the great world-concept ideal for which the movement is fighting, can slowly produce, by and by, that general style, which in days to come will make the new order appear really firmly consolidated inwardly, and not only outwardly consolidated.
Therefore the movement must not only answer the question as to the idea of trade-unions in the affirmative, but it must provide its large membership with the necessary education for the coming National-Socialist State by practical activities.
The answer to the third question is included in the statements made above.
The National-Socialist trade-union is not an organ of the class struggle, but an organ of the vocational representation. The National-Socialist State does not know any “classes”, but, politically speaking, only “citizens” with fully equal rights and, accordingly, with fully equal general duties, and in addition those belonging to the State, but, from a state-political viewpoint having no rights whatsoever.
In the National-Socialist sense the trade-union does not have the task of bringing certain members of the people into a union in order gradually to transform them into a class with which to take up later the fight against other, similarly organized formations. We would never assign such a task to a trade-union. It was not assigned to it until the moment it became the instrument for the fight of Marxism. The trades-union in itself does not mean “class struggle,” but Marxism has turned it into an instrument for its class struggle. It has created the economic weapon used by international world Jewry for the crushing of the economic basis of the free independent national states, for the destruction of their national industry and their national trade, and thereby the enslavement of free peoples in the service of the super-state, world-finance-Jewry.
In contrast to this the National-Socialist trade-union, by an organized unification of certain groups of participants in the national economic process, must increase the safety of the national ​economy and strengthen its power, by correctively removing all those imperfections which in the long run have a destructive influence upon the national community of the people, harm the life power of the people’s community, and thereby also that of the state, and finally bring destruction and disaster upon the economic structure.
Therefore, for the National-Socialist trades-union the strike is not a means for destroying and making unstable the national production, but rather serves to increase and improve it, by fighting all those imperfections which, on account of their anti-social character, hinder the economic productivity and thereby the existence of the people as a whole. For the capacity for work of an individual is always fundamentally related to the general legal and social position which he occupies in the economic process, and which alone makes him recognize the necessity of making this process a prosperous one for his own advantage.
The National-Socialist employee must know that the prosperity of the national economic structure means his own material welfare.
The National-Socialist employer must know that the happiness and the contentment of his employees are the basis for the development of his own economic power.
National-Socialist employees and employers are both representatives and solicitors for the entire community of the people. The high degree of personal liberty accorded to them in their work can be explained by the fact that experience has proved that the individual capacity for work is increased much more by according far-reaching liberty than by force. Thus one also avoids hindering the natural process of elimination by which the most capable, able and diligent ones are to be promoted.
For the National-Socialist trade-union the strike is, therefore, a means which can and probably must be employed as long as there is no national and racially orientated state. This, however, must take over the legal care and protection of all, thus eliminating the mass struggle between the two large groups-employers and employees—(which in its consequences, by decreasing ​production, is always harmful to the people’s community as a whole!). The chambers of economics will have to see to it that the function of national economy is kept up, and that the imperfections and errors harmful to it be eliminated. What today is being decided by the struggles of millions, will have to be settled in the future in guild-chambers and in the central parliament of economics. Then employers and employees will not fight furiously against each other in their struggle for wages and wage scales, thus mutually injuring the economic influence, but they will solve these problems together before a higher authority, which, in turn, must be guided by flaming letters, thus keeping constantly before it the well-being of the people and the State.
In this too the iron principle must prevail that the Fatherland is of first importance, and next the Party.
The task of the National-Socialist trade-union is the education and the preparation for this goal which is: the cooperative work of all, for the maintenance and protection of our people and their State, in a degree corresponding to the individual abilities, capacities and powers which are either inherent or developed by the community of the people.
The fourth question, namely, how can we get such trade-unions, appeared at that time rather difficult to answer.
Generally it is easier to organize something new in virgin territory than in an old territory which already had a similar organization. In a town in which a business of a certain kind does not exist, it is easy to start such a business. It is more difficult to do so if a similar business already exists, and it is most difficult if only one can prosper under the prevailing conditions. Because in this case the organizers face the task not only of introducing their own new business, but also of destroying the older establishment in the same town in order to exist themselves.
A National-Socialist trade-union along with other unions is senseless. Because it too must be fully convinced of the necessity of performing the task based on its world-concept and the consequent obligation of intolerance toward other similar or even hostile institutions, thus emphasizing the exclusive necessity of ​its own individuality. Even in this case there must be no getting together and no compromise with related organizations, but only the maintenance of the absolute sole right.
There were only two ways which led to such a development.
1. It was possible to organize our own trade-union, and then gradually take up the fight against the international Marxist trade-unions, or one could
2. Invade the Marxist trade-unions and endeavor to fill them with the new spirit, or transform them into instruments of the new ideas.
The following difficulties stood in the way of taking the first course: Our financial difficulties were still rather considerable at that time. The means at our disposal were very insignificant. The gradually increasing inflation made the situation still more difficult, since in those years it was impossible to speak of any visible and material advantages of the trade-union for the individual member. Viewed from this angle the individual worker had at that time no reason whatsoever for paying his dues to the trade-union. Even the already existing Marxist unions were near their collapse until all of a sudden millions fell into their lap because of the brilliant Ruhr-action of Herr Cuno. This so-called national Reich Chancellor may be called the saviour of the Marxist trade-unions.
In those days we could not count upon such financial possibilities. It was no incentive to anyone to join a new trade-union which, on account of its financial inability, could not offer him the least advantage. On the other hand, I had to object strongly to making such a new organization a sinecure for more or less brilliant men.
Indeed, the question of personnel played the most important role. At that time I did not know of a single man whom I would have trusted with the solution of this gigantic task. Anyone who in those days would have really crushed the Marxist trade-unions and replaced this institution of destructive class war, by helping the idea of National-Socialist trade-unions to win the victory, would belong to the really great men of our people and his bust ​would have had to find a place in the Valhalla at Regensburg for the sake of posterity.
However, I did not know of any head which would have fitted such a pedestal.
It is quite erroneous to change one’s view in this respect because of the fact that the international trade-unions themselves were also led only by men of average intelligence. This really does not mean a thing, because at the time when they were organized nothing else existed. Today the National-Socialist movement must fight against the gigantic organization which has been in existence for a long time, and developed in its every detail. The conqueror, however, must always be a greater genius than the defender whom he wishes to subdue. While it is possible today to manage the fortress of the Marxist trade-union with the help of common bigwigs, it can only be stormed by the great energy and brilliant capacity of an overwhelmingly greater man on the other side. If such a man cannot be found it is useless to quarrel with Fate, and it is still more foolish to attempt to force the issue with insufficient substitutes.
Here again we must make use of the knowledge that in life it is sometimes better to let a matter rest for the time being than to start it only half-way or improperly because of the lack of proper forces.
In addition to this there was another consideration which should not be called a demagogic one. I had in those days, and I still have it today, the firm conviction that it is dangerous to connect a great political world-philosophical fight too early with matters of economics. This is especially true with regard to our German people. For in such a case the economic struggle will at once direct the energy away from the political battle. As soon as the people have gained the conviction that by their economy they will be able to buy a little house, they will devote themselves to this task only, and they will have no more time for a political fight against those who plan to take away from them some day their saved pennies, one way or another. Instead of fighting in a political battle for the knowledge and conviction obtained, they become fully absorbed ​in their kitchen economics, and in the end they find themselves sitting on no chair whatsoever.
Today the National-Socialist movement has just begun its struggle. To a large degree it has yet to form and to perfect the image of its world-concept. It must fight with its entire energy for the realization of its great ideals, and success is only possible if the complete power is unreservedly used in the service of this battle.
Today we have a classic example for the fact that the occupation with purely economic problems will paralyze the active fighting power:
The Revolution of November 1918 was not brought about by trade-unions, but it prevailed over them. And the German middle-class does not fight for the German future in a political battle because it believes this future to be sufficiently secured by constructive economic work.
We should learn from such experiences because the same thing would happen to us. The more we gather the complete strength of our movement for the political battle, the sooner we can count on success along the whole line, and the more we take upon ourselves prematurely the load of trade-unions, settlements and similar problems, the less will be the benefit for our cause as a whole. It is true that these objectives are important, yet they can only be realized on a large scale if we are in the position to press the public power into the service of this idea. Until that time these problems would only paralyze the movement, and all the more so the earlier it undertakes to solve them, and the more it permits them to lessen its world-political ambitions. Then it could easily happen that trade-union interests would guide the political movement instead of the world-concept forcing the trade-union to march along with it.
However, a National-Socialist trade-union movement can only be of real benefit to the movement as well as to our people if from the viewpoint of world-concept it has already been so strongly influenced by our national ideas that it is no longer in danger of following Marxist ways. For a National-Socialist trade-union ​which sees its mission only in competition with the Marxist trade-union, would be worse than none at all. It must declare war against the Marxist trade-union, not only as an organization but above all as an idea. In striking at it, it must also strike at the exponent of class strife and class idea in order to become the guardian of the vocational interests of the German citizens in its stead.
All these viewpoints argued then and still argue against the organization of trade-unions of our own, only in the event there suddenly appeared an individual obviously called by fate to solve this very question.
Therefore, there remained but two other possibilities: either to recommend to our own Party members that they quit the trade-unions or that they remain in them in order to work there in a most destructive way.
Generally I have recommended this latter course.
In the years 1922 to 1923 especially, this could be accomplished without much difficulty; for the financial advantage which the trade-union had during the inflation from our membership was nil, since our membership was not yet large enough because of its only recent organization. But the damage done to them was really great because the National-Socialist adherents were their severest critics, thereby becoming disintegrating factors.
In those days I declined all such experiments which were bound to fail from the very start. I would have considered it a crime to take so and so much money from the scanty earnings of a worker to use for an institution which I was not convinced would be of any advantage to its members.
When a new political party disappears it is hardly a calamity but almost always an advantage, and no one has a right to complain, because the contributions of an individual to a political movement are given by him a fonds perdu, but anyone who pays his dues to a trade-union has a right to expect the benefits which have been guaranteed to him. If this is not taken into account, then the organizers of such a trade-union are swindlers, or at least unscrupulous men who must be brought to account.
Therefore, it was this view which guided our actions in the year ​1922. There were other people who apparently knew better and who organized trade-unions. They censured us for not having one, that being to them the most obvious proof of our erroneous and limited insight. But it was not long before these organizations themselves disappeared. Thus the final result was the same as ours, with but one difference: we had neither deceived ourselves nor others.