In my investigations of Pan-Germanic Socialism, it suddenly dawned on me that I began crafting an argument on the development of Socialism. Political Science, as a discipline among the Social Sciences, assumes that all Ideologies exist on equal footing insofar as all of them have definitive “Forms” and there are none which can be considered “Formless.” When I say that all Ideologies have “Forms,” I mean in the sense that the Ideology in question is capable of existing on its own without the support of any other. For instance, Neoliberalism does not need Communism or Fascism to give itself a coherent Form, just as neither Communism nor Fascism requires Neoliberalism to give themselves coherent Forms. There may be differing Factions within Neoliberalism or Communism and Fascism with their own interpretations of the respective Ideology, but they nevertheless constitute themselves as part of those Forms.
“‘Communist’ Italy and ‘Fascist’ China”
“The [two World Wars were] like a punishment from Heaven for the arrogant behavior of European nations comparable to Noah’s Flood [from the Old Testament of the Bible]. We certainly cannot expect plans to rebuild from those who are in a frenzied and confused state after the great destruction[.] [Eurasia] should talk of reconstruction while we need to proceed with reorganization.”
-Kita Ikki, Fundamental Principles for the Reorganization of Japan, ca. 1919
We can extend this argument to specific Factions among those three Ideologies. For instance, in Neoliberalism, the Social Liberal (“Progressive”) and Classical Liberal (“Libertarian”) may have opposing interpretations of what passes as a so-called “State,” but they still share the same Liberal Conceptions of Freedom and Equality. The Self is said to be endowed with Rights granted to them by the State of Natural Rights, which cannot be alienated by the State. The Totality does not exist, replaced by a Society of Private Individuals. Collective bodies of people are an “Individual” entitled to the same “Security” from the State of Natural Rights as the rest of the Society. These facts form the general basis behind the Freedom-Security Dialectic I had discussed previously in my readings of Der Arbeiter across various Blog posts on The Fourth Estate.
It is when we get to “Communism” and “Fascism” that things begin to get interesting. The labels themselves are misleading within the context of the Old 20th century because the manner in which they were used by historians are too generalist. Put another way, neither the Soviet Union achieved Communism nor did the Italians achieved Fascism. I had gone to great lengths in The Work-Standard to verify my suspicions regarding the former, which became apparent to me upon scrutinizing NEP (Nóvaya Ekonomícheskaya Polítika; New Economic Policy). Stalin had every reason to suspect that NEP was flawed, except he did not know what needed to be done in order to prevent its terrible tragedies from repeating themselves in other countries.
Similarly, Fascism was never realized in the 1920s. Fascism was supposed to have created a “Corporatist State” whereby the State presided over two Totalities, one for Employees and another for Employers. The Employees and Employers would establish their own respective Corporations, the State to act as the intermediate and a governmental body resolves the disputes between the Employees and Employers. Its proper application would resemble something akin to a “Birdcage Economy,” but unlike the “National/Foreign Economies” of the Chinese Dengist Reforms and Vietnamese Đổi Mới, the Italian version instead has “Employee/Employer Economies.” From here, it is possible for me to argue that a similar metaphysics is at play regarding the decision-making processes of Benito Mussolini and Deng Xiaoping. Behind Deng’s Birdcage was Chen Yun; behind Mussolini’s Birdcage was Alberto de’ Stefani. Both Chen and de’ Stefani are Capitalist Roaders–Liberal Capitalist subversives–within the context of Mao Zedong Thought!
- Chinese Birdcage: “The Plan must not be too overbearing, lest the Market suffocate, but there had to be a Plan to contain the Market, otherwise the Market would fly away and reintroduce Neoliberalism.”
- Italian Birdcage: “The Employee must not be too overbearing, lest the Employer suffocate, but there had to be an Employee to contain the Employer, otherwise the Employer would fly away and reintroduce Neoliberalism.”
When both are scrutinized by the Work-Standard, we come away with the impression that we are looking at a Machiavellian model of economic life. The Employee’s Plan must not be construed as too overbearing because the Employer’s Market will suffer from a loss in Work-Productivity due to a rise in Work-Intensity. At the same time, the Employee’s Plan must contain the excesses of the Employer’s Market, otherwise the Employer’s Market will hatch a plot to reintroduce Neoliberalism. This sort of logic raises so many questions that I cannot begin to fathom. One must understand why I am bringing up this example in relation to Fascism and Communism.
In essence, is it better for the Proletariat to be Feared than to be Loved or Hated by the State? It was Niccolò Machiavelli, not Karl Marx, who was arguing for this in The Prince. What we have here is an inversion of roles. Instead of the original interpretation of the State being Feared by the Proletariat as it was intended by Machiavelli, the Proletariat is to be Feared by the State. Only in this sense does it become possible for us to perceive Fascist Italy as cracking down on the powers of the Employee and empowering those of the Employers.
Here’s another correlation worthy of mention here. Deng’s Four Economic Modernizations and Mussolini’s Four Economic Battles follow a very similar script. “Economic Modernization” implies a Revolution, whereas “Economic Battles” implies a War. These parallels support Ernst Junger’s arguments in “Total Mobilization” and Der Arbeiter that Revolutions are the continuation of Wars because Wars are the continuation of Revolutions.
By process of elimination with the DHFL (Dead-Hand Feedback Loop), I can argue that:
- Battle for Grain = Modernization of Agriculture
- Battle for the Lira = Modernization of Industry
- Battle for Land = Modernization of Technology
- Battle for Births = Modernization of the PLA
This may seem like a bizarre analogy, but one must realize that there are plenty of people inclined to believe that the PRC became more “Fascist” as a consequence of Deng Xiaoping’s economic policies. The latest example pertains to a two-hour debate over whether the PRC is truly Fascist or Communist. In the end, they rightfully concluded that their definitions of Communism and Fascism are superfluous and do not properly describe the political-economic realities of the PRC. If neither “Communism” nor “Fascism” were truly realized in the 1920s, either they and Neoliberalism belong in the 19th Century or else their definitions of Communism and Fascism must be changed to conform with 20th Century paradigm because the 20th century never ended in the 21st century.
Feminism as Example of Formless Ideologies
“The Individual’s freedom to act and seek enjoyment [shall] not be dependent on [Private Property]. It is a different and an unimportant problem that some people in reaction to the theories arising from a view of [the Totality] as all-powerful, disregard differences in wealth and urge a uniform equality. I, however, argue that as Individuals’ abilities differ, the [State] must recognize these differences. Man cannot be equal in the desire for physical enjoyment and physical activity.”
-Kita Ikki, Fundamental Principles for the Reorganization of Japan, ca. 1919
This leaves me with the real question presented at the beginning of this Blog post. Is it possible for us to split all of the known Ideologies in the world into “Formed Ideologies” and “Formless Ideologies?” Are some Ideologies considered “Formless” by default, while others can be considered as “Formed?” Are Formed Ideologies capable of becoming Formless by adopting different Forms? Are Formless Ideologies capable of becoming Formed by adhering to a National Essence?
The best way for me to illustrate the notion of a Formed/Formless Ideology Distinction is to distinguish between Ideologies that have a National Essence those which lack their own. Let’s take Feminism as our example. Most Feminists are genuinely convinced that their Ideology has no National Essence because the rights of women are universal and therefore binding on all women. However, they would be repulsed to find out that Feminism was at one point adopted by Pan-Germanic Socialism and its heretical tendencies, Hitlerism and Strasserism. In her 1932 pamphlet, “Woman and the National Socialist State,” Dr. Sofia Rabe advocated for three different versions of Feminism. She proposed a “Hitlerist Feminism,” a “Strasserist Feminism,” and a “Pan-Germanic Feminism.” In all three versions, Dr. Rabe supported the idea of women’s liberation in the economic sense, wherein women are entitled to the same means of production as men.
Within the Hitlerist and Strasserist conceptions of Feminism, women allegedly have ownership over their own Personal Properties as well as their own means of production vis-à-vis Productive Properties. That changes when the woman marries her future husband, where she still maintains control over her Personal Properties, her own Geld and Financial Instruments. As far as the Hitlerists and Strasserists were concerned, the husband is not allowed to claim such Properties, Geld and Financial Instruments as part of their marriage. The State does not recognize the sanctity of the marriage by giving the couple a combined Paygrade, let alone the same Taxation Rates. This Hitlerist and Strasserist conception of women devolves into a careerist permitted to abuse non-Germanic women and freely divorce without the annulment of the Catholic Church.
In the true Pan-Germanic Socialism, the third conception of Feminism described by Dr. Rabe, we find peculiar language worthy of mention here. This third conception of Feminism is scattered throughout the pamphlet, appearing in two relevant passages which are:
“The housewife’s economic importance does not engender a demand from us for an amendment to marriage legislation; instead it elicits a demand for an amendment to marital property rights, in the sense of ensuring economic security for women. The liberation of women, which has been demanded by the women’s movement hitherto, should not be an economic demand in the materialistic sense, but rather a demand for the recognition of the inherent value of women as the helpmates and comrades of men.
If woman’s life’s work and ambition lies predominantly in the field of culture, then the economy has the purpose of securing for her – as it does with men – a means of living and of guaranteeing a livelihood for her and her family, whether she has to meet her needs within the economy on her own, or whether there is a man close to her in life who can help relieve her of this concern. If the chief occupation for a woman is housewife, as per her natural inclinations, then good knowledge of housekeeping is today more necessary than ever. Housewife work is beginning to become very popular once again. Prudence and frugality are administered far more effectively by housewives than by strangers, no matter how good an assistant they might be.
If the career of housewife is to be recognized as a profession and as a means of support, then living opportunities for women must also be assured.”
“If woman must be active in professional life in order to maintain the security of her existence, then she should be guided towards genuinely feminine occupations, where she will find more gratification than in so-called men’s professions.
Needless to say, she can always still work freely. Every opportunity for training should stand open to her.
If anyone believes that the underlying reason behind the scale of female employment today lies in a consciously desired masculinization of women, then this viewpoint is mistaken. I would like to posit against this the notion that the so highly-acclaimed freedom to compete with men is only a pseudo-freedom, one which increasingly leads towards women’s enslavement.
We have a tremendous range of work which requires the appointment of women and only women. In this respect, women’s career prospects are less exhausted than they have ever been. The fields of public welfare work, healthcare, housing cultivation, and education all necessitate the involvement of women. Occupational activity on the part of women is called for here because the common good demands it, and because only women can fulfill it.”
The Nietzschean-Leninist analogue to Dr. Rabe is Silvia Federici, who was arguing at very similar conclusions in an English context. Her 1975 treatise “Wages against Housework” is relevant here because the logical end-result is tantamount to the general arguments outlined in The Third Place.
“If we start from this analysis we can see the revolutionary implications of the demand for wages for housework. It is the demand by which our nature ends and our struggle begins because just to want wages for housework means to refuse that Schuld as the expression of our nature, and therefore to refuse precisely the female role that Kapital has invented for us. To ask for wages for housework will by itself undermine the expectations Society has of us, since these expectations – the essence of our Socialization – are all functional to our wageless condition in the home.
Wages for housework is only the beginning, but its message is clear: from now on they have to pay us because as females we do not guarantee anything any longer. We want to [know Arbeit by its whatness and thatness] so that eventually we might rediscover what is love and create what will be our sexuality which we have never known. And from the viewpoint of Arbeit we can ask not one wage but many wages, because we have been forced into many jobs at once. We are housemaids, prostitutes, nurses, shrinks; this is the essence of the ‘heroic’ spouse who is celebrated on ‘Mother’s Day’. We say: stop celebrating our exploitation, our supposed heroism. From now on we want Geld for each moment of it, so that we can refuse some of it and eventually all of it. In this respect nothing can be more effective than to show that our female virtues have a calculable money value, until today only for Kapital, increased in the measure that we were defeated; from now on against Kapital for us in the measure we organize our Will-to-Power.”
“This is the most radical perspective we can adopt because although we can ask for everything, daycare, equal pay, free laundromats, we will never achieve any real change unless we attack our female role at its roots. Our struggle for social services, i.e. for better working conditions, will always be frustrated if we do not first establish that our housework is Arbeit. Unless we struggle against the totality of it we will never achieve victories with respect to any of its moments. We will fail in the struggle for the free laundromats unless we first struggle against the fact that we cannot love except at the Price of Meaningless Work[.] Getting a second job does not change that role, as years and years of female work outside the house still witness. The second job not only increases our exploitation, but simply reproduces our role in different forms[.]
As for the proposal of Socialization and Collectivization of housework, a couple of examples will be sufficient to draw a line between these alternatives and our perspective. It is one thing to set up a daycare center the way we want it, and demand that the State pay for it. It is quite another thing to deliver our children to the State and ask the State to control them, discipline them, teach them to honor the American flag not for five hours, but for fifteen or twenty-four hours. It is one thing to organize communally the way we want to eat (by ourselves, in groups, etc.) and then ask the State to pay for it, and it is the opposite thing to ask the State to organize our meals. In one case we regain some control over our lives, in the other we extend the State’s control over us.”
From the outset, the Feminism of Dr. Rabe and the Feminism of Federici seem similar insofar as both women are advocating for women’s liberation under Socialistic contexts. What separates the two women, and their specific conceptions of Feminism, are the concurring presences of distinct National Essences. In Dr. Rabe’s case, we are looking at Pan-Germanic Feminism; in Federici’s case, we are looking at English Feminism. Both conceptions of Feminism are operating under concurring interpretations of Socialism. And both also arrived at the same conclusions which I made under the Intents of Command and Obedience in “Total Educational Effort (Pt. IV of V)”:
“Just like Western Househusbands under Neoliberalism, most Western Housewives under Neoliberalism do not behave like real women. They are Desparate Housewives because they are constantly chasing after Temporary Happiness that comes with Producerism and Consumerism, Kapital and Schuld.
If the Homemaker happens to be the Wife, she must strive to always live her life in a Hamiltonian Federalist, Prussian, or Bolshevist manner under the Intents of Command and Obedience, otherwise she will never comprehend why every Obedience eventually creates its own Command. The failure to comprehend why every Obedience eventually creates its own Command is the Socialist equivalent to failure to comprehend why the Liberal Capitalists enjoy chanting ‘every Demand creates its own Supply’ under the Incentives of Supply and Demand.”
In short, “Every Nation has its own Socialism.” Each Nation develops its own version of Socialism according to a distinct National Essence. Any realization of Communism cannot be realized without the development of Socialism, Corporatism and Syndicalism being the alternates routes to Socialism and ipso facto Communism. Communism is the Will-to-Power of the Übermensch and the Electrification of the Whole Country by the Work-Standard. The Withering of the State of Natural Rights occurs with the dissolution of old Liberal Conceptions of Citizenship, Jus Sanguinis (Blood & Wealth) and Jus Soli (Blood & Soil). In the absence of the State of Natural Rights comes the Emergence of the State of Total Mobilization and its own Conception of Citizenship, to be defined by Rank and Achievement. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” becomes the way of life in the State of Total Mobilization. It is something that every Nation must strive toward on their own terms.
Categories: Politics
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a Reply