The Beginning Of My Political Activities

TOWARDS THE end of November I returned to Munich. I went to the depot of my regiment, which was now in the hands of the ‘Soldiers’ Councils’.

The whole administration was quite repulsive to me. With my faithful war-comrade, Ernst-Schmidt, I came to Traunstein and remained there until the camp was broken up. In March 1919 we were back again in Munich.

Eisner’s death hastened this development and finally led to the dictatorship of the Councils–the Jewish hegemony. It was transitory but was the original aim of those who had contrived the Revolution.

As the new Soviet Revolution began to run its course in Munich, my first activities drew upon me the ill-will of the Central Council.

In the early morning of April 27, 1919, I was to have been arrested. But the 3 fellows who came to arrest me did not have the courage to face my rifle and withdrew just as they had arrived.

A few days after the liberation of Munich I was ordered to appear before the Inquiry Commission which had been set up in the 2nd Infantry Regiment for the purpose of watching revolutionary activities.

That was my first incursion into the more or less political field.

After another few weeks I received orders to attend a course of lectures which were being given to members of the army.

This course was meant to inculcate certain fundamental principles on which the soldier could base his political ideas. This let me meet fellow soldiers who were of the same way of thinking and with whom I could discuss the actual situation.

We were convinced that Germany could not be saved from imminent disaster by those who had participated in the November treachery–the Centre and the Social-Democrats.

The BourgeoisNational group could not make good the damage that had been done, even if they had the best intentions. They lacked a number of requisites without which such a task could never be successfully undertaken.

In our small circle we discussed the project of forming a new party. The leading ideas which we then proposed were the same as those which were carried into effect afterwards, when the German Labour Party was founded.

The name of the new movement which was to be founded should be such that of itself, it would appeal to the mass of the people; for all our efforts would turn out vain and useless if this condition were lacking.

That was why we chose the name ‘Social-Revolutionary Party’ because the social principles of our new organization were indeed revolutionary.

More fundamentally, the social problem led me to focus on economic problems during my earlier years.

Subsequently, this outlook broadened as I studied the German policy of the Triple Alliance.

The alliance was largely the result of:

• an erroneous valuation of the economic situation
• a confused notion of what is the basis of the future German subsistence

All these ideas were based on capital.

There is a principle that capital is exclusively the product of labour. Just like labour, capital was subject to all the factors which can hinder or promote human activity.

Hence, from the national standpoint, the significance of capital depended on the State’s greatness, freedom, and power.

These factors alone leads capital to promote the interests of the State and the nation, from the instinct of self-preservation and the sake of its own development.

On such principles the attitude of the State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear.

Its only object would be to make sure that capital:

• remained subservient to the State
• did not dominate national interests.

Thus, capital could confine its activities within 2 limits:

1. To assure a vital and independent system of national economy
2. To safeguard the social rights of the workers.

Previously I did not understand the difference between:

• capital which is purely the product of creative labour
• capital which is exclusively the result of financial speculation.

Gottfried Feder’s lectures made me understand both.

For the first time, I heard a discussion about the principles of stock exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities.

After hearing the first lecture by Feder, I got the idea for the most essential pre-requisites for a new party.

Feder’s merit was in his ruthless and trenchant description of the double character of the capital engaged in stock-exchange and in loan transaction. He laid bare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest.

In fundamental questions, his statements were so full of common sense. Those who criticized him knew that his ideas were sound but they doubted whether it was possible to be put into practice.

To me this seemed the strongest point in Feder’s teaching, though others considered it a weak point.

The person who lays down a theoretical program to explain the how something can be put into practice deals with the problem as such. He has to look to the end rather than the means.

The important question is whether an idea is fundamentally right or not.

When a man who is supposed to lay down the principles of a programme or policy begins to ask whether it is expedient and practical, then his work will cease to be a guiding star.

He should instead confine himself to the statement of the absolute truth.

The man who lays down the programme of a movement must consider only the goal.

• His thoughts will be determined by everlasting truths.
• His greatness will depend on the absolute truth of his idea.

It is for the political leader to point out how that goal may be reached.

• His activity must always be guided by taking practical account of the circumstances under which those truths have to be carried into effect.
• His greatness will depend on whether or not he correctly judges the given realities and how they may be utilized under the guidance of those truths.

The test of the greatness of a political leader is the success of his plans and his enterprises.

The final goal of the political philosopher can never be reached. This is because human thought may grasp truths and picture ends which it sees like clear crystal, though such ends can never be completely fulfilled because human nature is weak and imperfect.

The more an idea is correct in the abstract, the more powerful it is, the smaller is the possibility of putting it into practice, at least as far as this latter depends on human beings.

The significance of a political philosopher does not depend on the practical success of the plans he lays down but rather on their absolute truth and the influence they exert on the progress of mankind.

If it were otherwise, the founders of religions could not be considered as the greatest men who have ever lived, because their moral aims will never be completely or even approximately carried out in practice. Even that religion which is called the Religion of Love is really no more than a faint reflex of the will of its sublime Founder. But its significance lies in the orientation which it endeavoured to give to human civilization, and human virtue and morals.

This very wide difference between the functions of a political philosopher and a practical political leader is why the qualifications necessary for both functions are scarcely ever found associated in the same person.

This applies especially to the so-called successful politician of the smaller kind, whose activity is indeed hardly more than practising the art of doing the possible, as Bismarck modestly defined the art of politics in general. If such a politician resolutely avoids great ideas his success will be all the easier to attain; it will be attained more expeditely and frequently will be more tangible.

By reason of this very fact, however, such success is doomed to futility and sometimes does not even survive the death of its author.