The Political Space of German Resistance

Since 1918, in Germany, we have been going towards this point where the
vital needs of the state find themselves in complete incompatibility with those
of bourgeois society, this point where it is necessary at any price to decide for
the state or bourgeois society. Since then, one can only be bourgeois or
German. To be a German bourgeois is to be an insoluble contradiction. To
apply a bourgeois and German politics is not objectively possible.
Necessarily, it will always result in a treason respecting Germany on the part
of the bourgeois. For the reasons of self preservation, the German bourgeois
must become pan-European; to be capable of continuing to exist, it must
integrate Germany into Pan-Europa. Bourgeois society, Western culture, the
situation created by Versailles are, since 1918, different aspects of the same
reality. But the true sense of this reality is the subjugation of Germany and
the extortion of tribute imposed on the German people. A German politics,
wanting to satisfy the vital needs of the country, can only be anti-bourgeoisie,
anti-capitalist, and anti-Western. If it is not, inevitably it will always fall into
the plans of France.
Bourgeois society has produced a type of man, perfectly in its image. It is the
liberal personality who is entirely taken by the economy and occupies key
posts in industry, commerce, and finance. The economy is his destiny from
every point of view, and he understands politics exclusively as a function of
the economy. His well being, the sentiment that he has of his own
importance, his social position are indissolubly linked with economic trends.
Thus all his field of vision is occupied by the economy, of the sort that
appears to him as the first cause of everything that happens, as the center of

his existence. Finally, even his relation to nature is distorted. He considers it

as a reserve of energy that he must exploit in a rational manner, developing it
to obtain a good revenue. He is detached from all that is elementary. For him
that is not a dark force that irresistibly leads, but a source of energy from
which he can turn a profit. He treats national feeling in the same fashion.
Coldly calculating, he tears the veil of nationality and feels no emotion. He
reckons the utility of making believe that such economic interests are the
vital needs of the nation. The enthusiasm for the fleet animating the demand
for steel shielding plates, and war is a rare occasion to realize its benefits. The
liberal personality becomes the author of this scandalous abuse that defiled
the fallen Reich and turned away the German workers from the idea of the
state: this abuse that consists of invoking national interest when the appetite
for gain and the intention of exploitation allows them to take loot safely. The
implementation of a selfish plot, under the form of national business, it was
a blasphemy that destroyed the innocence of the national feeling. Since these
times, when a nationalist wave rises, we instinctively search for the bourgeois
liberal who is behind it and who is waiting for the occasion of enriching
himself.
The liberal personality is the most typical representative of bourgeois society.
But in order to be able to exist, he must incorporate and steer the acceptance
of its scale of values to all these layers of society that cannot be part of it
without certain reservations. The peasant, the intellectual, the aristocrat, the
soldier, the employee dependent on his boss, and the worker, not entirely
proletarianized, cannot echo him body and soul. Never were those and those
they represent so exclusively dependent on economic facts, contrary to the
liberal personality. They still guard a particular position that is not determined
by money and wealth. They have a bourgeois orientation, without being

bourgeois on the interior. They adapted to bourgeois society only to conserve

the non-bourgeois elements inside of themselves. They see the world through
the glasses of the bourgeoisie, but they still cannot remove these glasses and
make another image of the world. The peasant is attached to his fields and to
the rhythm of nature, even if he has learned the secrets of account
management. The intellectual protested in his heart against the fact that the
force of his reflections and the abundance of his imagination were submitted
to the law of supply and demand on the public market. Certainly, the Junker
and the soldier adopted to this society, but they compensated in contempt to
that which they could no longer oppose. The employee refused to accept that
his social value objectively depended on his position. With his romantic
ideas, he shined with the dignity of his rank. By wrapping himself in the cult
of a beautiful past, he surmounted the doleful humiliation the present
inflicted on him. The non-proletarian worker, finally, searched to acquire a
conscience of his particular and personal value, remaining attached to
religious and patriotic traditions.
Bourgeois society pressed to facilitate the compromise with these social
classes whose essence was foreign to it. In the regards to the peasant, it
observed a prudent and discreet attitude. The concession, that it made to its
particular rules of life, was surprisingly lenient. It paid attention to what it
found there from its economic point of view. It coaxed the the intellectual by
publicly proclaiming equality in the rights of education and property. It
prevented any down and out student from playing to the nobility of his spirit
against the share of the director generals profits. Generously, it placed
the instruction, this provision of knowledge, besides the possession
ofproperty, the provision of material goods. It flattered the aristocrat and the
soldier by making their way of life as a model, and by paying them nicely for

marriage arrangements with them. It did not bother the employee, playing
with his middle age hobbies. If, during the hours of work he was a good,
docile proletarian, he would have the right to procure some compensation in
the virile liberty of fantasies of fellowship. It tried to buy the non-Marxist
worker, without realizing the situation fully, with work communities and
social institutions
Bourgeois society could capture these social classes because it could assure
them of sufficient revenues. Those who knew how to adapt, would be free
from need. The rebellion was defended under the pain of death by starving, a
means of making docile the most recalcitrant fellows.
It is true that in Germany, bourgeois society revealed in time its impotence in
a domain in which is should have had suggestive force and that would be the
true bearer of its existence: after 1918, it showed itself incapable of assuring
the masses of their work and their daily bread. Its economic miracles had
served as the means of corruption. Right now it remains in debt to miracles.
Its magic vanished; we discovered that what it wanted to make happen
was balderdash for the truth. By making the economy the motor of the
universe, its world lost its sense, as the economy no longer functioned.
It gave reasons to doubt it precisely to these social classes who, in their heart
of hearts, had never really taken part in it. Thus it did not know to prevent the
peasants from being driven from their lands. It completely abandoned the
intellectual. To the men of honor, the soldier in particular, it inflicted a shame
without parallel. Even the worker, not engaged in the class struggle, was
delivered into despair. It had become the enemy and the curse of all these
men. The fact that it continued to exist, ruined those to which it appealed to.

It no longer had the reserves that permitted it to distribute alms to those

whose reluctance it has to bear in this regard. The principles on which
bourgeois society rested suddenly served to justify the ruin of those who,
until the present, it had won the confidence of by promises of economic
benefits. Everywhere, it spread distress and misery where we waited for wellbeing and progress. He who was not, in his heart, a bourgeois no longer had
any reason to defend bourgeois society. It could not longer convince anyone
of its mission and appeared as a deception and a fraudulent organization. The
charm that bourgeois values and ways of life exercised had been broken. The
fundamental thing, the voice of ethnic substance, the base instincts, which
had been sacrificed for so long to the discipline of bourgeois life, recovered
its voice. We must pose the question of to be or not to be and understand
immediately that to be is incompatible with the maintenance of bourgeois
society.
We felt it most profoundly after overlooking that bourgeois society had
become an institution and a measure of security for the world of Versailles,
this world that is in fundamental opposition to the reclamation of Germanys
right to life. Where we do argue this reclamation, it would be necessary
henceforth to organize the revolt against bourgeois society. If the bourgeois
and capitalist economy constrains Germany to dissolve into Pan-Europa,
Germany must show blood and fire to this society for which the economy
represents destiny.
Bourgeois society, which must justify itself by economic successes, lost its
power over the peasantry, the intelligentsia, the soldier, and the employees
and workers, when with the signature on the Treaty of Versailles, it thrust
them into misery. From this fact, a new impulse, natural and German, surged

in them, and only in them. Since then, there are only a few thousand of
captains of industry, bankers, administrators, and sell out journalists whose
precarious existence lies there, for interior reasons, to maintain bourgeois
society. Outside of them, this society can only remain, at most, by the habit
and the law of inertia. But nothing will permit it to stay forever. The Decline
of the West of Spengler is the prophecy of the collapse of bourgeois society.
And his little book Man and Technics addresses itself to the same society by
giving them the kind advice to die with dignity.
The processes of interior detachment of these social classes, neglected by
bourgeois society, are reflected in the history of the evolution of the National
Socialist movement. National Socialism was this form under which was
expressed the first dark sentiments of these classes who did not truly share in
bourgeois society. From the National Socialist movement they become
conscious of their non-bourgeois particularity. They were still not capable of
formulating what they wanted to lead them. Therefore it is not by luck if their
social program remained imprecise, nebulous, and confused. They professed
socialism without that declaration having a concrete content. It was only the
emphatic expression of their desire to hold off the bourgeois order.
Their nationalist ardor was the eruption of a fundamental originality. The
national will to life that, deservedly, felt threatened by the political execution
of the treaties, lead from the bourgeois point of view, was addressed with a
vehemence. This will awoke when man became conscious of all the gravity
of the situation and the impossibility of leaving his individual misery.
Suddenly, he understood that this misery touched even the bases of national
existence.

It is true that the feeling, the orientation, and the motive forces of this antibourgeois movement did not later correspond with the organization it formed,
it no longer corresponded with the tendencies and objectives of the National
Socialist Workers Party.
The party did not become the instrument of an anti-bourgeois will. It no
longer reinforced it, and it did not follow its ways. All on the contrary, it later
took positions to weaken it, to paralyze it, and to turn it from its path. First it
channeled it to tame its vehemence, and then to let it get bogged down. It
rendered it inoffensive it only became a simple appeal to the conscience of
bourgeois society, wanting, in fact, to prevent a rupture with the bourgeoisie.
From there, it suddenly transformed into an association to salvage bourgeois
society. It now had the effect of a measure that must rein in the anti-bourgeois
instincts to then be capable of dominating them more surely. It is a measure
that has made all its proofs. For all time, the Catholic Church has been used
to make insurrectionist movements inoffensive. The National Socialist party
has become the instrument permitting bourgeois society to apply the same
tactic. The abandonment of certain socialist points, written in the program,
the accords with heavy industry, the tendency to make coalitions with the
parties of the right, the assurance of an unbroken legality, the engagement
taken towards the culture of the West are signs clearly indicating how the
party feels obliged towards the West.
In Hitler, the sentiment of bourgeois life has lost its natural assurance. In the
measure where he represents bourgeois society, he only embodies it in its
extreme anguish, in the hysteria of its fear of death, and in the fierceness of
its desperate defense. It was thus inevitable that the bourgeois infamy would
amplify in him until it became grotesque, wanting to make roaring flotillas

from the most authentic national sentiments in the repugnant service of

private and bourgeois selfishness. The alliance that Hitler concluded with
the general directors of heavy industry of the West is a terrifying symbol: one
more time, we have sold the German fervor to use it as the reinforcement of
troublesome speculations and the villainous attempts of the bourgeois
businessmen.
When these neglected social classes became conscious of the swindle of
which, one more time, they were the victim, joining the Communist
Party appeared to them as the only solution. If nationalist ideas were truly
only the bait that the reactionaries use to attract imbeciles, if the national
feeling is only a passing intoxication, that serves the cold selfish calculators
well, then, should it not, by self-love, forever refuse to fall into the trap of the
nationalist movement? It is not idiotic to continue to consider
internationalism as something disconcerting?
However, there is not any doubt that these social classes feel stateless besides
the Communist Party. Given the particular character of the party, how could it
be anything else?
Certainly, the proletariat of large industrial cities is equally a product of the
bourgeois world. The bourgeoisie cut the link between the workers and
nature, the means of production, the security of ownership. It obliged it to see
its only signification in the fact of being sold into the workforce, and to be
used as such. It inculcated in him that he was nothing outside of economic
processes and that his entire existence is ruled by economic conjunctures. If,
bit by bit, the worker only knows how to think in economic terms, he has
been made amenable to bourgeois society itself. It was not Marx that drove it

there. Basically, Marx had only explained the laws that regulate the capitalist
economy and engraves them in the minds of the worker, no longer permitting
his understanding to be blurred by it. Marx, with a very scientific rigor,
demonstrated that the profound forces, that move bourgeois society, are
exclusively derived from the economic order and that his conception of the
world is entirely based on a manner of thinking in economic and calculable
terms. He encouraged the workers to appropriate, with a calm mind, the same
forces, and the same conceptions. The source of materialist thought is found
in bourgeois society. Marxism is the cynical revelation of the deepest secret
of the bourgeoisie. It is a ruthless exploration of the bourgeois conscience.
And it hinders this society, not because it is in opposition with it, but because
it sees through it. The bourgeois that injures the worker, because he only
thinks of his salary and his contract, is unconscious and ignorant or then a
terrible hypocrite. The difference between the bourgeois and the proletarian is
simple to understand: one is abeneficiary of bourgeois society and the other
must pay all the costs.
Until 1918, the Marxist opposition had only been a struggle on the interior
of the capitalist system. Following the adage live and let live, we searched
for a compromise permitting the assurance of profit for the bourgeoisie and to
prevent the proletariat from losing all its hope. Social democracy and unions
fulfilled their function by preventing the pressure of the proletariat from
exceeding the limits after which a social explosion would be inevitable. In
this sense, they were safety valves of bourgeois society.
The proletariat was at this point, a product of bourgeois society that had
finally become the discoverer of the true tendencies of this society. It
concretely represented where it should have lead. Just because it had a

shadow, the most somber impulses, the veiled consequences, the profound
hidden instinct, the most secret law of this society intensified in it. Its
uprooted existence symbolized, anticipated, all the misery of the final state of
bourgeois society: its lack of bonds with nature, its obtuse materialism, its
soulless rationalism, its Western nature, its pacifism, its Pan-European
comedy, its national consumption. The social democratic proletariat that
made an abstraction of all treason, is close to reconciling itself with France, it
is only a revelation precipitating the most secret intentions of bourgeois
society. The Marxist workers already pronounces today what his boss
would tomorrow.
Social democracy is as much a part of bourgeois society as the National
Socialists. It also saves, but it works on another level. As Hitler catches
those unfaithful to the bourgeois, the social democrat tries to bridle the men
marked by hot iron, burdened by the blows of fate, these men whose blood
and sweat was used to construct bourgeois society.
When in 1918, bourgeois society found itself embarrassed and could no
longer afford the necessary money to appease the proletariat, a great part of
the German workers escaped from the domesticating power of social
democracy. All the hopes of the proletariat were annihilated, that wanted to
follow it in its loss. Its reserves of human and national substance were broken
between the walls of large cities. From the instant where it had lost the bases
of its existence, social resentment only remained, in the will to beat back and
implement a last defense. The senseless anger of its will of destruction
pushed it until the absolute negation of bourgeois society. Its insurrection was
bogged down in the socioeconomic domain, unable to acquire a force
of political strike. Thus it expiated the sin of having been the product of this

society. Because no way lead the economy of a true politics. A politics that
orients itself principally by the function of economic criteria always remained
an amateur, dilettante politics and forcefully suffers setbacks.
Behind the intense thirst for destruction, is the impotent dream of a society of
the future, and not the firm determination to create the state of the future.
Even if, by reason of the links of causality, the blow to bourgeois society was
as forceful as the blow of Versailles, the effect had not been calculated from
the point of view of a true politics.
It was the role of the Communist Party to assemble the proletarian masses
whose hopes had been annihilated. Evidently, the cadre that it offered and its
ruling atmosphere was poorly suited for these peasants, intellectuals, soldiers,
employees, and workers not yet definitively proletarian. By reason of the
social conditions of their existence, these classes do not have the same social
bitterness. They still have bases that are something other than social
resentment and they can transform themselves in political impulses. Even if
that seems paradoxical, the communist worker is a product of bourgeois
society far more than these non proletarians. Bourgeois society created
and formed the worker, even though it bullied him. Thus the other social
classes, even when they felt integrated into bourgeois society, always guarded
their particularity outside andbeyond bourgeois influences. Thus it is in the
increase of extreme existential misery, they then saw bigger things, more
complex then those represented by bourgeois society. So they felt very
quickly that in the Communist Party, they would not have their place. Visibly
this same feeling lives in the worker, at present a member of the Communist
Party, but who, despite his proletarian destiny, still guards the remainder of
his national and human substance. Even though he shares the hostility

towards the bourgeoisie, he is all the same plagued by an anxiety saying that
he is, somehow, a bad employee.
The Communist Party understood that its own attack against bourgeois
society, an attack whose motive force had been social resentment, did not
correspond to the political needs of the situation, and even lacked decisive
objectives. It realized, that by its position of principle, it could only assemble
the industrial and uprooted proletariat and that the important social layers,
pressing to escape the influence of the bourgeoisie, remained deaf to their
appeals. Consequently, it searched to replace by tactics that which it lacked
by nature. Thus it lead to the line of Scheringer and the agrarian communist
program. It is these two phenomena of adaptation, that were imposed on
them by exterior circumstances and that are, in no fashion, a reaction directed
by their own nature.
For this reason, it lacks the force to convince. The agricultural program,
although adapted to the peasants sentiment of life and their conception of the
world, does not create a true opening towards the rural population. The
peasant scented there an intention, a trap, and remained on guard. The
communist agricultural program did not represent a conviction but was the
result of absolutely arbitrary calculations. And when arbitrary calculations
come in, the bases are flimsy. Certainly, the Scheringer line was an attempt to
occupy nationalist positions. But in the meantime, it must realize that the
Communist Party was not used to fighting on this terrain. Already the cause
of mutinies in their own ranks, they cannot maintain it. The Westernized
industrial proletariat no longer has such psychological and popular depth to
be the bearer of the heavy duty of nationalist politics. For this reason, the
German Communist Party is Trotskyite, although it is on the side of

Stalin. Leninism, which represented a reality of a total state, requires a living

fullness, a fullness that is this party no longer has, but that the Russian
worker, always attached to his village, still guards in himself.
At this moment, we enter into the political space of German resistance. For
the Communist Party it remains a tactic full of zeal, but ineffective, for the
movement of resistance it is a vocation that it cannot shirk from. The
resistance cuts the bridges with bourgeois society, its institutions and scales
of value. The destiny of one who possesses nothing, that bourgeois society
imposed on the peasantry, on the intellectuals, and on the employees,
facilitates their decision to break with them. It no longer has economic
interests that could link them to this society. Certainly, we put first in
question the political function of bourgeois society before attacking its social
character. It is necessary to sweep it away because it has become the
instrument that the Versailles regime uses to dominate Germany. By
scratching the German polish of bourgeois society, we discover the regime of
Versailles. It embodies an institutional countermeasure that would prevent the
liberation of Germany. The will to social revolution of the German resistance
has secret political reasons. It must break this machinery by enforcing the law
of Versailles on German territory. Not only the proletariat of the industrial
cities, but simply Germany, we no longer have anything left to lose
except chains. Solely, the proletariat does not see that the social chains that it
must bear are made of political iron. From this point of view, even the idea of
class struggle suddenly takes a political color: the bourgeois seems, on the
interior of German borders, as a foreign legionnaire. All that we can do
against it is, in truth, a form of war against the foreigner. The cause of
Germany is always in the hands of those who combat the bourgeois. Firstly,

the national community with the bourgeoisie is equivalent to a fraternization

with the enemy.
We recognize the bourgeois, in this sense, in his position on private property
and Russia.
By accepting the principle of unlimited private property, we confirm the
validity of the title of the foreign creditors to the detriment of the German
people, and we place arbitrary individual gain over the claim of the nations
right to life. Russian Bolshevism did not abolish the institution of private
property in itself. For the needs of the state, it only circumscribed it and
reduced it to the minimum goods in that category. To be German means
today to limit in the extreme, in a similar fashion, the extent of private
property for reasons of national conservation.
Russia is the center of the anti-Versailles world, and it took on itself all the
consequences that spare no antagonistic force against Versailles It is no a
paradise, as the Communist worker believes it. It is a camp opposed to the
West. There, hierarchy is determined by the capacity of each to fulfill his
function as a workers and a soldier. Wealth there is simply a shame. That is
what scares the bourgeois but that constitutes a model for German
resistance.
For the Communist Party is incapable of assuming
such political responsibility and, thus, wanting to overthrow bourgeois
society is only a means for the national revolutionary end. Even in the social
plan alone, it is much less revolutionary than its doctrine supposes. It lacks,
to say so, the rich human soil, from which always surges fresh impulses,
pressing revolutionary action. But this soil exists in the classes of the

peasants, intellectuals, soldiers, employees, and half proletarian workers who

are in the process of leaving the bourgeois camp and already feel darkly that
bourgeois society is the most sure guarantee of German subjugation. The flag
of German resistance is flown for these men. Their place is here, they gather
under this flag.
There is a common trait between the communist movement and the German
resistance: the two both share the anti-Versailles front and are fully conscious
that it is necessary to break with Western culture, bourgeois society, and the
capitalist system, if we are to take the war against Versailles seriously. We
cannot belong to the anti-Versailles front if we want to save in whatever
manner, certain parts of the old world. That would be fascist, fascism
being the last effort of the West. All true anti-Versailles tendencies must be, in
one fashion or another, communist or Bolshevik. Once Bolshevism was
the greatest and most courageous intelligence of Russia, permitting it to bear,
despite all, victory over the West. That latter have understood that fact very
well. The manner in which it vituperates against Russia reveals that it is
trying to take its revenge. After the nature of things, to be Bolshevik means
to inflict a defeat upon the West. When we storm against Bolshevism, we
avow that we suffer this defeat, that we consider the lost cause of the West as
our own cause.
But this common trait does not cancel the particularity of the German
resistance. The resistance has more breath; it has the political breath,
thinking in terms of strategy. Thus the class struggle of the communists is
only a channel of tactical combat for it. It calculates the combative value of
the proletarian brigades in the mission against the West. It ensures that the
military spirit of the Red Front is directed by political thought. It does not

fear communist internationalism. The Western universalism of Roman

Catholicism and the community of global economic interests of the liberal
West is much more dangerous than that.
In itself, the German resistance is neither Communist, nor anti-Communist.
But it iscapable of Communism, when there is no other solution. Full of
resolution, it is ready for anything, when it acts to save Germany. Given the
global situation, collectivism is certainly today a necessary means to arrive at
the political ends of Germany; that is a fact. The politics of resistance consists
of using this fact to assure a future of Germany.
From the political point of view, Communism which, at its beginning, had an
exclusively economic meanings, transforms into this sole type of collectivism
that human pride can tolerate, that is to say the collectivism of valiant
troops. The peasant collective becomes a community for the defense of
farmers, the socialist factory becomes a personnel battalion, and all the
processes of production transform into military performance, in to a heroic
and warrior exploit. The German people submitted its existence to an entire
omnipresent plan leading to the destruction of the bases of the coercive
regime of Versailles by measures applied according to a rigorous method.
Collectivism is the expression of it. The German people do not yet understand
that its oppressors have systematically organized its subjugation. The Dawes
and Young plans have hardly been seen from this angle. In comparison, the
national German resistance seems pitiable and lamentable, an opposition
that unswervingly remains attached to the individual rights of the creative
personality. It is hardly possible to to confront the world and politics with
such unconsciousness. The plans of subjugated peoples cannot be too
extended, too global to surpass the methodical order of the conquerors. The

five year plan of Russia give the example of where a people in danger must
be ready to go. The century of individual liberty is finished, that of
collective planning has commenced. Once liberalism delivered humanity to
a state of organic dependence. Then humanity contracted this malady that is
exacerbated individualism and must be, at present, delivered to the liberal
spirit. Already the vanguard has crossed the threshold of a new epoch of
demanding, rational, and conscious bonds.
The partisan of German Resistance, just as the Communist proletariat, is in
this vanguard. Both the two are unconditional combatants, on being as
attached to the politics of the state as the other is to class. The courage of
their absolute conviction comes from their poverty. When they have a bit to
lose, it is easily to manipulate them at the moment. Although, by consequence
of its opinions, the communist proletariat must be hostile to the idea of the
state, the coercive power of the idea of the total state is so great and
Russia proves it to attract even the proletariat in contradiction to its antistate principles into its force field. To be communist or a partisan of the
German resistance is not a question of principle but of national substance.
Ultimately, the German substance will be so strong as to transform the idea of
communism into a tool in service of the future grandeur of Germany.
Even Lenin, who was never a proletarian, submitted the logic of his Marxist
theory to the political commandments of the Russian national substance.
If the non-proletarian suddenly wanted to vanish into the Communist Party,
that would be a cowardly and very convenient flight. They have no task to
accomplish there, they must only adapt to it. To believe that a mission of
national education waits for them there would be an illusion that they would
make for themselves. Nobody wants to be educated by them. Beforehand,

their gifts would be considered suspect, as empty and reactionary shells.

We do not want their presents, we want them to vigorously bend to the
rules. They enter into a foreign domain. If they do not respect the usages and
customs, we should despise them. They must destroy that which is good for
them in order to be recognized as equals, to no longer notice. Finally they are
going to realize that they adhere to the party solely because the life they had
is already broken and they have lost all hope. Within the party. They will be
free from the discipline that imposes the German demands. Nobody wishes it.
Discretely, also they will later feel relieved to have honorably escaped the
rigor of this requirements.
The communist worker is only social-revolutionary, and that is for objective
reasons. From the social and historical conditions of his existence, it is
impossible for him to before all a national-revolutionary. There is a
chance for the German that his social radicalism will be an explosive that can
leap over the coercive order of Versailles. Although the communist worker
does not doubt the political meaning of his action, the fact that he
accomplishes it is already sufficient.
The most heavy tasks are reserved for the non-proletarian layers. Their social
radicalism should be the proof of their national-revolutionary sincerity. The
seriousness of the national-revolutionary conviction will be the true meaning
of their lives. Their social radicalism is not spontaneous, but it is necessary. It
must be above all suspicion. That is the spirit of resistance. To generalize it
and to expand it to all the non-proletarian classes, that is what must be
done. That infinitely demands more energy than the liberating jump in the
Communist Party. When social radicalism becomes an essential element of
the general attitude of these social classes, it will have a base of confidence,

permitting them to organize and meet the communist worker. Their national
revolutionary ardor, the firmness of their political will then will become the
motive force that can enlarge the social revolutionary forward thrust to make
a political action with a very broad wingspan.
The German resistance is where we ensure that social revolutionary action
equally serves the national revolutionary cause, for the fall of bourgeois
society and is, at the same time, the point of departure for the resurrection of
Germany.