World History has identified a multitude of ways in which a nation-state adopts Socialism. I had identified most of the known entry points, splitting them into three categories for the sake of ease of reference. Those are “Reformation,” “Reorganization,” and “Revolutionization.” All three are related to a phenomenon, introduced by Marxism-Lutheranism, and what I have called the “Reform vs. Revolution Dilemma.” In fact, I would even argue that this Dilemma is a Dialectic related to a similar Dialectic introduced in The Work-Standard, the “Realm vs. Empire Dilemma.”
Let’s begin with the more obvious Dialectic. As I had pointed out in “On Hamiltonian Federalism and Friedrich Nietzsche (Pt. I of III),” Nietzscheanism-Leninism has the potential to present a different paradigm, a metaphysical alternative, to the well-known conventional concepts of “Reform” and “Revolution” as they have been presented by Marxism-Lutheranism. Whatever new paths have been blazed by Nietzscheanism-Leninism can eventually pave the way for the establishment of newer political paradigms for Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism and the Federalist Party to consider in the future. Only in this sense does Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism demonstrate the capacity to become a Conservative Socialism in its own right as the manifestation of the American Essence.
Reformation refers to the usual bottom-up approaches that one would usually expect most Socialists and Communists to interpret both “Reform” and “Revolution.” The best way to understand this is to envisage something more akin to the Protestant Reformation because all of the methods under this category involve splitting the Totality into two halves without any genuine input from the State itself. Everything here denotes an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by one segment of the Totality. In essence, Socialism is being introduced by means of Civil Disobedience, Insurgency, Insurrection, Secession, Civil War.
Reorganization refers to other usual top-down approaches that were implemented in response to the Reform vs. Revolution Dilemma. Unlike Reformation, everything under this category involves implementing Socialism by the State without any input from the Totality, where the Head of State is given dictatorial powers in a Carl Schmitt-esque “State of Exception.” Historical examples included the Self-Coup by the Head of State wielding dictatorial powers (or, in certain cases, a National Emergency), the introduction of a Military Dictatorship, the impending threat of State Collapse, a World War, Social Reform, or Military Insubordination.
What do the previous two examples have in common? Reformation involves the Totality without the State, Reorganization entailing the State without the Totality. One is forced into choosing the Totality or the State because World History has yet to envisage a Revolution involving the Totality working alongside the State to realize Socialism. That Socialism is to be realized from the National Essence uniting Totality and the State into a Council State or “People’s State” to overcome the limitations of the “Westphalian Nation-State System.”
The Westphalian Nation-State System introduced our contemporary understandings of the “nation-state” concept in Political Science. It emerged from the “Peace of Westphalia,” created in response to the military hostilities of the Thirty-Years War from 1618 to 1648, which began as a Sectarian power struggle between German Roman Catholics and German Protestants within the German Reich. The conflict later included the interventions of the rest of Europe over the question of political preeminence in the broader geopolitical affairs of the whole continent. This “Westphalian System” was created as a compromise as opposed to being an actual solution to the problems which began the conflict. It stipulates that there exists an “international system of nation-states” where each one wields sovereignty over the domestic affairs of its own territories without any interference from external forces. All nation-states, regardless of its demographical or geographical size, are treated equally under international law.
Perhaps the biggest flaw was how the Westphalian System created an irreparable rift between the concepts of “Realm” and “Empire,” the two most important designations of relevance to the German Essence and the American Essence by extension.
In the German Essence, there is the question of whether the “German Reich” entails the unification of the German-speaking world as a single Nation or the creation of an overseas colonial empire. Prussia and Austria were both caught at the center of this debacle in the context of the “German Question.” Pan-Germanic Socialism emerged as an attempt to resolve the issue of choosing between Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) and Kleindeutschland (Lesser Germany).
In the American Essence, there is the question of whether the “United States” is defined by an Empire of Liberty or by a Federalist American Union. Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism was developed by this Author in opposition to Jeffersonian Liberal Capitalism, the ideological force responsible for the establishment of the Empire of Liberty–the “Liberal International Economic Order” (LIEO)–over the course of the two World Wars in the Old 20th Century.
Both Editions of The Work-Standard have outlined this matter in the two-part “World State Organization” Entry as part of the attempt to describe the World State Organization (WSO) and the establishment of a Socialist world order. The German Essence is struggling to free itself from the European Union/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (EU/NATO), while the American Essence is trying to ensure that the American Union will survive the downfall of the LIEO. Any realization of Socialism in America must not entail the dissolution of the Union, just as how any realization of Socialism in Germany must entail the reestablishment of the Reich. The reason why is because of how both countries are governed by some form of Federalism, creating a well-defined delineation between the central and state governments.
It is because of this consideration that the “Withering of the State” concept, as I had pointed out, involves the creation of an entirely distinct Mode of Production with its own conceptions of the National Polity and the State.
- Instead of “State of Natural Rights,” there is the State of Total Mobilization.
- Instead of “Production for Profit/Utility,” there is the Production for Dasein.
- Instead of “Westphalian Nation-State,” there is the Socialist Nation.
- Instead of “Westphalian Sovereignty,” there is the National Essence.
These important factors, outlined in the context of The Third Place and now introduced in Second Edition of The Work-Standard, have given rise to the conceptualization of an entirely distinct revolutionary set of methods. I also discussed about those topics before in Part VI of my readings of Ernst Jünger’s Der Arbeiter. That was where I began entertaining these notions in relation to The Work-Standard.
Therefore, Revolutionization cannot be equivocated with Reformation or Reorganization insofar as it involves the Totality and the State working together in sync to realize Socialism as an Eternal Return to the National Essence. I am talking about specific factors that cannot be the result of certain “social ills” or “wartime contingencies” but the result of humanity’s everyday encounters with Technology and its ability to revolutionize the world. In both Editions of The Work-Standard, I stated that there are specific stressors capable of metastasizing into genuine problems which will necessitate the establishment of Socialism. The most prominent stressors are related to the Financial (“Death of Bretton Woods”), the Digital (“World Wide Web vs. National Intranets”), the Ecological (“Climate Change” & “Peak Oil”), the Virological (“Coronavirus Pandemic”), the Technological (“Automation”), the Sociological (“Demographic Decline”), the Cultural (“Cultural Imperialism”), the Geopolitical (“Globalization”), and the Ethical (“Slave Morality of the Bourgeoisie”). Another noteworthy involves the Constitutional factor based on the conclusions from “Is the Work-Standard Constitutional?” in an American context, which is valid in its own right since the Constitutions of Liberal Capitalist regimes normally do not include legal language favorable to the Work-Standard. Those are the most commonly-cited examples, and I am confident that they cannot and should not be the only ones.