Your latest ARPLAN post comes across as being similar to I would write on my Blog in a late 20th century context, even though the post itself pertains to the early 20th century. Upon reading the article that Rita Marholz wrote in 1926, I am convinced that her arguments offer a glimpse into Pan-Germanic Socialism’s true stances on women in general and not just in the German-speaking world. Marholz maintained that women have their roles to play in the articulation of Pan-Germanic Socialism throughout the German-speaking world. Aside from attending to the immediate needs of their family, women should be encouraged in becoming more proactive as political activists. If they cannot aspire to become political activists, they are welcome to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual foundations of the movement.
For those who lack the intellectual aptitude or spiritual drive, they must never be discouraged from participating in the unification of the German-speaking world through Pure Socialism. At the very least, they can always play their parts in the cultural and social spheres of the German-speaking world, two areas where Pan-Germanic Socialism also intends to challenge Liberal Capitalism. We tend to forget that Liberal Capitalism–Neoliberalism, in addition to its political and economic tendencies, also maintains its own social and cultural ones. The Liberal Capitalists themselves will never admit this, but under their Incentives of Supply and Demand, they are determined to promote cultural and social attitudes favorable to Neoliberalism. Harnessing the technologies of mass media and mass communications applications, the Liberal Capitalists seek to create a mass culture or popular culture that reinforces their “Bourgeois Typus” by introducing a “Gestalt (Figure),” a personality that best embodies their ideology.
The phenomenon that Marholz was referring to in reference to “Bourgeois woman” is something that I had referred to in The Third Place (1st Ed.) as the “Liberalization of Young Minds.” This “Bourgeois woman” described by Marholz is the product of a specific Gestalt derived from the Bourgeois Typus. The kind of woman they wished to promote is to be discerned from specific personality traits. In essence, I am talking about a woman receptive to Economic Liberalization and Social Liberalization. Given the implications, the term “Liberalization of Young Minds” applies here insofar as what Marholz had described about “Bourgeois woman” resembles an early 20th century antecedent of the “Young Urban Professional,” these “Yuppies” who emerged in the Western world during the 1980s.
Every lifestyle choice that a woman makes in the “Gestalt of the Yuppie” or any other Gestalt derived from the Bourgeois Typus is consistently defined in terms of Kapital and Schuld. She does not care whether the national economy runs on Welfare Capitalism or Laissez-Faire Capitalism so long as that “Capitalism” gives her the Kapital and Schuld to express her “Liberalism.” It is reflected in her spending habits and adherence to specific cultural trends.
For instance, if the woman develops a fascination with Jeffersonian America (and not Hamiltonian America), she either emigrates to the US “ to satisfy their compulsive need for activity’” or emulates the Jeffersonian Weltanschauung to serve as the vanguard of the Empire of Liberty. If she develops a ‘concern for the working class’ in any country other than her own, it is because she found an Incentive to spend Kapital. The logic remains constant whenever she decides to participate in NGOs, think tanks, foundations, and philanthropies that seek to promote Economic and Social Liberalization within her nation. Similarly, if she borrows Kapital with Interest and accrues Schuld by buying ‘designer’ goods and services that she neither needed nor wanted, the expenditures are to be understood as status symbols signifying her ability to generate more Kapital than Schuld or vice versa. While there are plenty of other behaviors that I have discerned from these women (and they do exist throughout the Western world and elsewhere), I must stress that their lifestyle choices are always open to change.
If there was anything that we should be inferring from Marholz’s “It must always be the ‘Volk’!,” it is that a Bourgeois woman is always capable of becoming a “Proletarian woman.” In order for this to happen, there needs to be some genuine commitment to serious personal lifestyle changes that conducive to that particular Gestalt. The lifestyle changes may occur suddenly or gradually, but they will always yield the same outcome with enough effort. The result would be tantamount to the antithesis to the Liberalization of Young Minds, a “Socialization of Young Minds” induced by cultural and social trends favorable to a particular variant of Pure Socialism, be it Scientific or Artistic. However, just because a Bourgeois woman can become a Proletarian woman, we must always bear in mind that the reverse is also within the realm of possibility.