What was the “Uneven Alliance?” (Pt. II of II)


If I had not stressed this already, the latest ARPLAN Post feels like a culmination of the earlier ones on Pan-Germanic Socialism (PGS), including the power struggle to define what it is supposed to be. That power struggle is arguably a consistent characteristic which appears to be a continuation of the ideology’s ambiguous nature during its early years. Much of the ambiguities have to do with what PGS sought to create, a “National Socialist Democracy,” and the competing definitions of the “Nationalist,” “Socialist,” and “Democratic” aspects of PGS. Is the “Socialism” in NS a form of Social-Democracy or a legitimate Pure Socialism? What version of “Democracy” is NS most compatible with? Does the “National” in NS entail an emphasis on the national essence of a particular people or the national essences of Europe?

The impression that I have with PGS is that “National Socialism” is not a phenomenon exclusive to PGS and there have been other coexisting “National Socialisms” with their own definitions. The Czech branch for instance continues to exist in a spiritual successor known as the “Národní Socialisté – levice 21. století” (National Socialists – Left of the 21st Century). That party, from what I can tell, has been around for the past decade and continues to be reported on by the local Czech press. I did a bit of looking around and discovered a small section regarding their ideological principles. I am sending you the link if you are interested:

Since I am not a Czech speaker, I had to use Google translate to decipher what was written. Below are the passages which are relevant to this ARPLAN Post:

“Therefore, our predecessors never understood socialism as a social system, much less a state system, but as a living political movement for the national and social emancipation of the lower and middle classes of the Czech nation. They have always been a non-Marxist party, in some respects an anti-Marxist party, because Marxism, if it wins, nationalizes and suffocates natural human activity, initiative and self-government. It also overestimates the importance of the economy or ‘base’ and underestimates the importance of the spiritual factors of the development of society or ‘superstructure’, which, on the contrary, we highly value as irreplaceable nation-forming elements. That is, humanism, morality, education, culture, art, the activities of national churches, a number of educational associations, etc. Unfortunately, the revaluation of the economic base did not change even after November 1989. On the contrary, the situation worsened. Today, the economic base is embodied in money, which controls everything and to which everyone submits. The thesis that money comes first is actually a continuation of Marxism in its new, vulgarized form

As current supporters of National Socialism, we fully build on the ideological legacy and political efforts of our predecessors. To the basic ideological principles of our program, which are the national principle and the social principle, we are currently also adding the third principle of sustainable development, which expresses our responsibility for the future development of our country. All these ideological principles of National Socialism are mutually conditioned and complementary, they have the same meaning as the colors on our tricolor belong together.

The national principle expresses our will to promote and defend national interests at all times and in all places. As a consistently patriotic party, we demand the equality of the Czech nation with other nations, both within the EU and the international community. However, we reject any nationalism that favors the interests of one nation over other nations. At the same time, we do not understand the nation in a narrowly ethnic sense, but we understand it as a political nation represented by Czechs, Moravians, Silesians, as well as all citizens of the Czech Republic who identify with its democratically formulated interests.

The social principle is very closely linked to the national principle and goes hand in hand with it. Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk has already said that the Czech question is primarily a social question. Today, it is a matter of defending the welfare state and the public services sector from attempts by the right to truncate and weaken it as much as possible. The welfare state must play the role of a guarantor of a quality and dignified life for all ordinary citizens. Access to education and health care must not be conditioned in any way by the property and income of the individual.

The principle of sustainable development expresses our responsibility for the future long-term development of our country. In line with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we understand this principle as comprehensive and balanced development, based on three pillars of long-term sustainability: economic, social and environmental. Simply put, it is about promoting a social market economy with environmental aspects.”

There are certain aspects of this party which do remind me of PGS in its pre-Hitlerist phase. There is the belief that the “National and Social Principles” are both closely intertwined, the defense of the national interests of the Volksgemeinschaft within the nation and abroad, a social system that ensures access to education and healthcare for all its citizens, and the adherence to a mode of economic life which should embody aspects of environmentalism. There are also the non-Marxist justifications and even opposition to Marxism, including the justifications against it. Such rhetoric is somewhat reminiscent of familiar ideas which I had encountered in Jung’s “Der nationale Sozialismus” as well as in other ARPLAN Posts pertaining to PGS.

The only key differences which distinguish PGS from Czech National Socialism, apart from its characteristic Pan-Germanist perspective and the rampant Antisemitism throughout the early 20th century, are within the realms of political-economic governance. PGS never favored Parliamentary Democracy, preferring instead either some form of Corporatism or a Council Democracy, nor was it in favor of “Social Market Economy.” A Social Market Economy is essentially a high-tier Market Economy distinguishable from China’s “Socialist Market Economy,” which should be considered as a low-tier Planned Economy. It will also be adhering to forms of Autarky and Protectionism in its trade policies. All of these characteristics PGS are what distinguishes itself from Czech National Socialism as well as its opposition toward the ideological goals of the OECD, which has consistently been committed since 1948 to promoting Market Economies, Parliamentary Democracies, and Free Trade.

Another key characteristic for PGS, which we have yet to make a conclusion resolution on, concerns the ideology’s stance toward Pan-Europeanism. I doubt PGS would advocate for a unification of Europe along political, economic, social, and cultural lines. It will be opposed to the EU/NATO on the grounds that it will undermine the national sovereignty and social cohesion of the German-speaking world. There is a relevant passage in Der nationale Sozialismus where Jung wrote in favor of a certain form of non-interventionism.

“This characteristic is what distinguishes us from other races; we should not concern ourselves with seeking to emulate or to understand them. We will never penetrate their spiritual and intellectual world, and they will never penetrate ours. That is why we hold the opinion that it is folkdom which defines the natural limits of our abilities; for this reason we reject internationalism (cosmopolitanism, pan-folkdom), no matter what motives it may arise from and no matter what guise it may be garbed in.”

As for the Czech National Socialists, from what I can tell, the appear to be somewhat tolerant of Czechia’s membership status in the EU/NATO. Nothing in my readings of the Czech press indicate that the party has adopted Eurosceptic positions, let alone an outright advocacy of abandoning the EU/NATO. It just goes to show just how distinct PGS is compared to the Czech branch of National Socialism, Bogumil.

Although I have been aware of the Czech National Socialists in Czechia for some time now, consider this important tidbit as another piece of historical evidence to support the ongoing development of our conclusions here on PGS.


Categories: Philosophy

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 )

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: