Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

By the turn of the century, the trade-union movement had ceased to serve its former
function. From year to year it had entered more and more into the sphere of Social
Democratic politics and finally had no use except as a battering-ram in the class struggle. Its
purpose was to cause the collapse of the whole arduously constructed economic edifice by
persistent blows, thus, the more easily, after removing its economic foundations, to prepare
the same lot for the edifice of state. Less and less attention was paid to defending the real
needs of the working class, and finally political expediency made it seem undesirable to
relieve the social or cultural miseries of the broad masses at all, for otherwise there was a
risk that these masses, satisfied in their desires could no longer be used forever as docile
shock troops.
The leaders of the class struggle looked on this development with such dark foreboding and
dread that in the end they rejected any really beneficial social betterment out of hand, and
actually attacked it with the greatest determination.
And they were never at a loss for an explanation of a line of behavior which seemed so
inexplicable.
By screwing the demands higher and higher, they made their possible fulfillment seem so
trivial and unimportant that they were able at all times to tell the masses that they were
dealing with nothing but a diabolical attempt to weaken, if possible in fact to paralyze, the
offensive power of the working class in the cheapest way, by such a ridiculous satisfaction of
the most elementary rights. In view of the great masses' small capacity for thought, we need
not be surprised at the success of these methods.
The bourgeois camp was indignant at this obvious insincerity of Social Democratic tactics,
but did not draw from it the slightest inference with regard to their own conduct. The Social
Democrats' fear of really raising the working class out of the depths of their cultural and
social misery should have inspired the greatest exertions in this very direction, thus
gradually wrestling the weapon from the hands of the advocates of the class struggle.
This, however, was not done.
Instead of attacking and seizing the enemy's position, the bourgeoisie preferred to let
themselves
be pressed to the wall and finally had recourse to utterly inadequate makeshifts, which
remained ineffectual because they came too late, and, moreover, were easy to reject because
they were too insignificant. Thus. in reality, everything remained as before, except that the
discontent was greater.
Like a menacing storm-cloud, the ' free trade union ' hung, even then, over the political
horizon and the existence of the individual.
It was one of the most frightful instruments of terror against the security and independence
of the national economy, the solidity of the state, and personal freedom.
And chiefly this was what made the concept of democracy a sordid and ridiculous phrase,
and held up brotherhood to everlasting scorn in the words: 'And if our comrade you won't be,
we'll bash your head in-one, two, three ! '
And that was how I became acquainted with this friend of humanity. In the course of the
years my view was broadened and deepened, but I have had no need to change it.
The greater insight I gathered into the external character of Social Democracy, the greater
became my longing to comprehend the inner core of this doctrine.
The official party literature was not much use for this purpose. In so far as it deals with
economic questions, its assertions and proofs are false; in so far as it treats of political aims,
it lies. Moreover, I was inwardly repelled by the newfangled pettifogging phraseology and the
style in which it was written. With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content or
incomprehensible as to meaning, they stammer an endless hodgepodge of phrases
purportedly as witty as in reality they are meaningless. Only our decadent metropolitan
bohemians can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an 'inner experience' from this