The latest ARPLAN Post is definitely among the most insightful and relevant topics about Pan-Germanic Socialism. In this case, we are delving into Pan-Germanic Legal Theory (PGLT), including its prospect of ushering an entirely distinct form of legal jurisprudence, Animal Rights just being one example among many different cases. Pan-Germanic Socialism, for those who do not know, had its own conception of International Relations at one point whose interpretation of International Law differed from all other forms of International Relations. Its significance is important in a world concerned about Climate Change and Peak Oil because I am convinced that a Pan-Germanic Socialist Nation in this century can implement PGLT as part of its foreign policies. There is no indication PGLT entails imperialism, warmongering, war profiteering, or neocolonialism because Pan-Germanic Socialism itself vehemently condemns them.
To begin, there are four principles which define PGLT under International Law:
1. The Right to Mutual Coexistence
2. The Right to National Self-Defense
3. The Right to Equal Treatment
4. The Right to National Sovereignty
As you and I both know, Pan-Germanic Socialism emphasizes the importance of the Volksgemeinschaft as the “Nation.” But unlike the Realist School of International Relations, the Volksgemeinschaft does not exist in a chaotic, anarchic world order. It coexists alongside hundreds and hundreds of other Volksgemeinschaften as part of a “Gesellschaft.” This Gesellschaft is essentially a world order that governs the conduct of diplomacy between Nations. All Volksgemeinschaften in the Gesellschaft have their own interpretations of Natural Law, which is informed by their own historical, cultural, traditional, theological, sociological, anthropological, psychological and psychical conditions. Every Volksgemeinschaft’s distinct interpretation of Natural Law is predicated on their Right to Exist as an identifiable Volkskörper. The Pan-Germanic Socialist conception of Natural Law differs from the Liberal Capitalist conception insofar as it rejects “Natural Rights” because “Positive Law” also does not exist in PGLT.
For the sake of clarity, here is how this sort of logic looks on two diagrams:
Liberal Capitalist Legal Theory
Natural Law || “Positive Law”
“Natural/Unnatural Right” || Legal Right
In the Liberal Capitalist version, we have “Positive Law” (Laws passed by Parliament) and “Natural Law” (Laws passed by Nature). The metaphysics is there within my last comment. A law like the “Animal Welfare Act” to a Liberal Capitalist is ‘unreasonable’, not that it would deprive them of another source of Kapital, but specifically because it is foreign or perhaps even alien to their everyday understandings of legal jurisprudence. Repealing or deregulating it in Parliament, therefore, becomes ‘reasonable’ to them.
Pan-Germanic Legal Theory
Natural Law || “Moral Imperative”
“National Law” || Legal Right
In PGLT, however, we have “National Law” (Laws passed by the State) and “Moral Imperative” (Laws passed by the State according to the Volksgemeinschaft’s interpretation of Natural Law). Every National Law is meant to have some basis in Natural Law so as to outline the Legal Rights of those affected and the “Moral Imperatives” which are of importance to the Volksgemeinschaft. Passing a law like the “Animal Welfare Act” is understood by Pan-Germanic Socialists like Rudolf Jung or Hermann Göring as ‘ethical’, whereas repealing it would be ‘unethical’.
If there is anything we can learn from PGLT, it should be this: Who interprets Natural Law in relation to International Law and National Law, and on what legal basis are these interpretations being made? Can a post-1945 argument be made that PGLT would entail be a revolutionary form of legal jurisprudence unlike the conventional Liberal Capitalist version governing Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty under International Law and International Relations by extension?
I am convinced that PGLT has the potential to eliminate a number of legal problems in these United States and the broader Western world. To claim that PGLT is exclusive to the German Reich (or the German-speaking world at large) is tantamount to an underappreciation of its precedents. The best part of all is that we can finally begin laying the groundwork for a Council Democratic form of governance capable of helping whole countries around the world combat the rise of Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon” in the digital realm.
Contrary to popular belief, the Panopticon is a Liberal Capitalist concept derived from Utilitarianism and its relationship with Bentham’s “Positive Law.” We cannot talk about Positive Law itself without eventually discussing about Bentham and his lifelong ambition to create his own version of legal jurisprudence based on his Utilitarian philosophy. The logical conclusion of his Panopticon concept is a “Police State” where mass surveillance technologies are deployed to monitor the “Civil Society” without the latter’s awareness or even their consent. We already live in a world where the multinational corporations and intelligence agencies of Liberal Capitalist regimes are allowed to expropriate personal information for profit. But that is simply because of how the WWW (World Wide Web) was designed to be as a nationless, stateless digital realm where nobody’s government can be held accountable by anyone, let alone by their own government.
How would PGLT address the question of Surveillance Capitalism? We often forget that the Internet is an extension of the Gesellschaft. And if the Internet is part of the Gesellschaft, we can also argue that the Volksgemeinschaft of every Nation is supposed to have their own “Intranet.” Going back to those four principles which I had outlined earlier, does the Pan-Germanic Socialist Nation have a Moral Imperative to protect its citizens from hostile mass surveillance? How about the Moral Imperative of establishing its own Intranet separate from the Internet?
And this is not the only example of where we can reapply PGLT based on what has been learned from the latest ARPLAN Post, Bogumil. I am confident that there are plenty of other examples in the 21st century that affect our own everyday lives both online and offline. In doing so, we can arrive at entirely different conclusions and even provide distinct perspectives to others on legal grounds favorable to Pan-Germanic Socialism. The most obvious benefit is that we do not really need to be relying on the historical experiences of the German Reich, the NSDAP or the German-speaking world overall. That will allow us to keep much of our analysis and conclusions grounded in contemporary times, creating an entirely distinct legacy for this version of Socialism.
PS: On a sidenote, if I had to choose what this version of International Relations should be called, I would have to give it the proper designation of “National Socialist School of International Relations.” While one might be inclined to refer to it as “Völkisch” or “Pan-Germanic,” I genuinely find the term “National Socialist” to be more appropriate here because of how it can be reapplied elsewhere and not just in the German-speaking world alone. It is a Socialistic interpretation that cannot be framed as being part of the more well-known Marxist School of International Relations. That particular School of Thought remains fractured between “Revisionists” adhering to the Frankfurt School and Trotskyism and the “Anti-Revisionists” who are still readjusting to a Liberal Capitalist world order where the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries no longer exist.