Update (25 October 2021)

Currently, my plan for today is to work on a new addition to “The Third Place.” It is a series of Blog posts related to the conceptualizations of the Socialist Student Economy, the Reciprocal-Reserve Banking System, and the World State Organization as separate topics in themselves. Here is what I have for an upcoming Blog post:

An American visiting the German Reich will find their Land to be very diverse and likewise for a German visiting these United States. A Socialist world order is capable of helping the Americans and the Germans understand who as they are as different peoples in two separate continents. If my conclusions here are correct that those two countries are meant to be Command Economies, despite having very diverse polities, how would this arrangement look politically and socially?   

The “American people,” as John Jay argued in The Federalist Papers, did not arise from a natural process. They emerged from an historical process begun by the Seven-Years War (the “French and Indian War,” as it is known in US History textbooks), continuing with the American Revolution and in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist attempts to reunite these United States under a new Constitution.

The “German people,” as Karl Otto Paetel argued in National Bolshevik Manifesto, did not arise from a natural process. They too emerged from an historical process begun by the Napoleonic Wars, continuing with the Industrial Revolution and in the Prussian and Austrian attempts to reunite the German-speaking world under a new Reich.

The question being addressed by German Socialists and German Nationalists within the pages of Karl Otto Paetel’s National Bolshevik Manifesto does have a US equivalent in John Jay’s Federalist Papers. There is a very similar set of metaphysical arguments being promoted by Paetel and Jay which I find to be highly peculiar because America and Germany have always been two different countries on two separate continents.

Should the Reich be defined by East Prussia? For Paetel, the Reich must not be defined entirely by East Prussia. One noteworthy example is how Paetel argued for each State government to have its own State Civil Service and a Reich government with its own Reich Civil Service.

“There indeed, as both Oswald Spengler and Moeller van den Bruck identified within the ‘Prussian Style’, is the type of [German] Socialism which we have demanded arise within the German [States]; it already exists in them in embryonic form. There has that choice for ‘We’ over ‘I’, for unity in polarity, already manifested itself (in contrast to the Marxist conception of society) a creative self-existence, grounded in blood and steel – and experienced as a demand, not as some special opportunity.

Of course, one must keep in mind that there is another side to these things: it is no coincidence that the synthesis became ‘Prussianism and Socialism’[.] Even the Prussian Principle is today in danger of being misused.

[I]t goes without saying, of course, that this is not about the [State] of [East] Prussia – which will have to be subordinated to the organic, decentralized unity-concept through the council-structure of the tribal regions (the ancestral heartland of Prussia indeed did not establish a biologically distinct but historically existent ‘new tribal concept’) – but Prussia’s impulse of will. One could also say that it is about Germany’s ‘Prussianization’.

Socialism will transform [the] German ‘citizens’ [of each State] into [citizens] of the German [Reich]; the contradictions between Nation, Volk, and State will be abolished by [this new Reich] and refashioned into a new synthesis.”

Should the Union be defined by New York? For Jay, the Union must not be defined entirely by New York. One noteworthy example is how Jay specifically argued for each State Civil Service to have a State government and a Federal Civil Service with its own Federal government.

The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us[.]

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.

Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.

Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,–whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended.”

What is very peculiar about the National Bolshevik Manifesto is how its author assumed that whoever was reading it is from East Prussia. What is also peculiar about Federalist Paper Nos. 2-5 is its how its author assumed whoever was reading it is from New York. And yet the two documents were written prior to a specific tragedy in the histories of their respective countries. The Jeffersonians were plotting to take over America during the 1790s and the Hitlerists were plotting to take over Germany during the 1930s. New York and East Prussia would have suffered together if the Jeffersonians and the Hitlerists had been the ones waging the Cold War as a continuation of World War II. The Jeffersonians and Hitlerists would have dragged Prussia, New York and the rest of humanity into a free trade of thermonuclear fire and radiation.



Categories: Politics, Third Place

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: