These five articles, aside from providing a general overview of Pan-Germanic Socialism’s anti-Capitalist tendencies, outlines the known contradictions that you mentioned within your own notations. In order to grasp the crux of my arguments here, I need to break them down into segments, seeing how all five articles were not written by the same person. Due to the sheer length of this ARPLAN post, I have had to break down my response comment into two parts.
To begin, despite its own inherent flaws, Pan-Germanic Socialism (PGS) can still be considered as a “Pure Socialism.” A Pure Socialism, to borrow the terminology of The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.), denotes any ideology whose outward “Label” and inward “Essence” is capable of developing Socialistic characteristics. Even if the Label does not openly declare its Socialistic qualities, the Essence will determine whether it is a “Scientific Socialism” (aligned with Marxist Theory) or an “Artistic Socialism” (unaligned with Marxist Theory). Behind the Essence of any Pure Socialism lies a Weltanschauung (Worldview) and a Gestalt (Form). The Weltanschauung sets the parameters of the ideology’s values and premises, its Gestalt defining the content and style that is to be expected of those adhering to it.
I have found the theoretical methodology to be extremely helpful in understanding a vast multitude of different Pure Socialisms, self-proclaimed or otherwise, whose Essences do not conform neatly with Marxist Theory. Having internalized the “Scientific/Artistic Socialism Distinction”, it does not take long for me to criticize notions of defining all Socialisms in relation to Marxist Theory. To cite Pan-Germanic Socialism as an example:
-Those who call it a “premeditated rhetorical trick used to fool gullible workers into serving reactionary interests” are focusing on its Label.
-Conversely, those who claim it “grew directly out of [Marxist Theory] and that the two share the same basic ideological precepts” are focusing on its Essence.
In both cases, everyone is assuming that all Socialisms must be Scientific, as if there is no room whatsoever for the Artistic ones that blaze their own paths with its own interpretations. Must all Socialisms be defined solely in Marxist terms? The sooner we grasp the meanings of Pure Socialism and the Scientific/Artistic Distinction, the better someone is at comprehending the crux of my upcoming arguments.
To summarize the five articles, each one is a personal interpretation of Pan-Germanic Socialism that seeks to articulate its stances on a particular area: Property and Currency (A. Krebs); variants of Kapital (J. Goebbels); Socialist economic governance and international trade (O. Strasser); banking and monetary policy (R. Jung); and employment and labor policy (G. Strasser). There was a reason why the second half of my response comment was done in reverse chronological order. After reading through all five articles, I was able to determine how their views on Socialist economics and finance are aligned with the Work-Standard.
PS: You should be able to see the second half of my comment as soon as I post this one.