Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

greatness, freedom, and power of the state, hence of the nation, that this bond in itself would
inevitably cause capital to further the state and the nation owing to its simple instinct of selfpreservation
or of reproduction. This dependence of capital on the independent free state
would, therefore, force capital in turn to champion this freedom, power, strength, etc., of the
nation.
Thus, the task of the state toward capital was comparatively simple and clear: it only had to
make certain that capital remain the handmaiden of the state and not fancy itself the
mistress of the nation. This point of view could then be defined between two restrictive limits:
preservation of a solvent, national, and independent economy on the one hand, assurance of
the social rights of the workers on the other.
Previously I had been unable to recognize with the desired clarity the difference between this
pure capital as the end result of productive labor and a capital whose existence and essence
rests exclusively on speculation. For this I lacked the initial inspiration, which had simply
not come my way.
But now this was provided most amply by one of the various gentlemen lecturing in the
above-mentioned course: Gottfried Feder.
For the first time in my life I heard a principled discussion of international stock exchange
and loan capital.
Right after listening to Feder's first lecture, the thought ran through my head that I had now
found the way to one of the most essential premises for the foundation of a new party.
In my eyes Feder's merit consisted in having established with ruthless brutality the
speculative and economic character of stock exchange and loan capital, and in having
exposed its eternal and age-old presupposition which is interest. His arguments were so
sound in all fundamental questions that their critics from the start questioned the theoretical
correctness of the idea less than they doubted the practical possibility of its execution. But
what in the eyes of others was a weakness of Feder's arguments, in my eyes constituted their
strength.
It is not the task of a theoretician to determine the varying degrees in which a cause can be
realized, but to establish the cause as such: that is to say: he must concern himself less with
the road than with the goal. In this, however, the basic correctness of an idea is decisive and
not the difficulty of its execution. As soon as the theoretician attempts to take account of socalled
'utility' and 'reality' instead of the absolute truth, his work will cease to be a polar star
of seeking humanity and instead will become a prescription for everyday life. The theoretician
of a movement must lay down its goal, the politician strive for its fulfillment. The thinking of
the one, therefore, will be determined by eternal truth, the actions of the other more by the
practical reality of the moment. The greatness of the one lies in the absolute abstract
soundness of his idea, that of the other in his correct attitude toward the given facts and
their advantageous application; and in this the theoretician's aim must serve as his guiding
star. While the touchstone for the stature of a politician may be regarded as the success of
his plans and acts-in other words, the degree to which they become reality-the realization of
the theoretician's ultimate purpose can never be realized, since, though human thought can
apprehend truths and set up crystal-clear aims, complete fulfillment will fail due to the
general imperfection and inadequacy of man. The more abstractly correct and hence powerful
the idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues