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 is capable 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 anti-state 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.