In 1926: living at the edge of time - Monoskop

STRIKES 221
between Baldwin and Chamberlain on one side and MacDonald on the
other, the rift between the dominant class and the subordinate class is
much less dramatic than it was in prewar Germany" (278-279).
The higher value in whose name Stresemann argues for a new spirit
of reconciliation-and through which British politicians justify their
interventions during the days of the general strike-is that of the entire
nation's well-being. It is from exactly the same angle that Adolf Hitler
suggests a radical redefinition of the concept "strike." He no longer sees
strikes as a proletarian weapon for class struggle, but considers them a
device for optimizing the national economy: "For the National Socialist
labor union, ... the strike is not a means of smashing and destroying
national production, but rather a strategy of making money by fighting
against bad conditions which, because of their antisocial character, reduce
the performance of the economy and thus jeopardize the existence
of the entire community ... The National Socialist employee must realize
that a flourishing national economy leads to his own material happiness
... The National Socialist employee and the National Socialist
employer are both representatives of and spokesmen for the same national
unity" (Hitler, 676). [see Employees, Individuality vs. Collectivity]
Although Hitler takes care to announce that strikes will be unnecessary-and
therefore illegitimate-in the future National Socialist state,
and although he openly admits that his sympathetic view of the workers'
plight is motivated by his desire to win their support for the National
Socialist Party, his reactions to the new labor situation are far more
analytic than those of Stresemann, who seems exclusively interested in
minimizing any kind of conflict, and does not realize the potentially
revitalizing impact of such confrontations for the national economy.
Hitler, in contrast, is not only capable of identifying the positive aspects
of strikes, but also proposes a distinction between the "material value"
and the "ideal value" of labor. On the basis of this dichotomy, he tries
to combine the enhancement of individual motivation through a hierarchy
of income levels with the creation of a collective spirit of solidarity:
"Material compensation will be allotted to those whose labor is productive
for the community; spiritual compensation, however, must lie in the
high regard that each person earns by devoting his individual talents to
the collectivity of the nation. It is no disgrace to be a workman, but it is
certainly one to be a civil servant who steals his labor from God and his
daily bread from the people" (484).