Bogumil,
There is another aspect of my original discussion that gradually became apparent to me over the course of the previous week. If you recall, I stated how Marholz alluded to Economic Liberalization being the precursor to Social Liberalization and Political Liberalization, and how an opposing Economic Socialization could counteract that process. Marholz described both processes within the context of women’s participation in the articulation of Pan-Germanic Socialism throughout the German-speaking world. And going by my conclusion at the time, a “Bourgeois woman” becomes a “Proletarian woman” by making personal lifestyle changes to adopt a Gestalt (Form) that reflects the Weltanschauung of Pan-Germanic Socialism.
What I did not mention at the time was the sort of woman Pan-Germanic Socialism looking for and whether any government policies could help its adherents define that woman’s ontology. We know that, in the Soviet Union, “Soviet Woman” was promulgated as the female counterpart of “Soviet Man.” If “Soviet Woman” was meant to be Soviet Man’s Comrade in the workspace, then she was also his helpmate in the household. They alternated between the concurring demands of the household and the workspace, taking turns to look after their family.
In Pan-Germanic Socialism, barring the Hitlerists, we do see a similar position being adopted. Aside from this ARPLAN post, there were those relevant passages in Der nationale Sozialismus where Rudolf Jung described how women in the German-speaking world were traditionally self-employed and “learned their trade just as the men did.” Those descriptions were indicative of what I presume are ontological conceptualization of “Germanic Woman.” There is now enough information on ARPLAN for us to argue that Germanic Woman is distinguishable from Soviet Woman based on how she would conduct herself in the workspace.
Germanic Woman is expected to be working in Professions where the workload is neither heavy nor strenuous. In contrast to Soviet Woman, Germanic Woman will not be engaging in any mining or construction work. The German Reich would ensure that her Profession is within specific fields where women tend to perform better than men. Her overall performance in the workspace is to be evaluated against other Germanic Women of comparable qualifications. Social policies would also be in place to ensure that Germanic Woman has fewer working hours so that she could spend more time looking after her children and parents.
Where Soviet Woman ultimately differed from Germanic Woman is that she was often subject to a “Childlessness Tax” throughout most of her childbearing years. This Childlessness Tax targeted up to 6% of Soviet Woman’s income. If Soviet Woman was not wealthy, attending university, or had children who died during the “Great Patriotic War,” she could exempt herself.
This brings me to that other aspect of my original comment to the latest ARPLAN post. In addition to efforts to promote cultural values and social behaviors favorable to Pure Socialism, a Socialist government can always enact policies that could potentially encourage “Bourgeois women” to become “Proletarian women.” Providing fewer working hours for and taxing the income of women at childbearing age are just two viable policies that I am currently aware of. The question that I have yet to ascertain is which of those two are more effective and why.
Signed,
-DAH
PS: If anyone is interested, I am including some relevant links about Soviet Woman.
Soviet women with ‘non-female’ jobs: https://www.rbth.com/history/330385-soviet-women-workers-photos
How factory-kitchens freed Soviet women from ‘tiresome’ cooking: https://www.rbth.com/history/335132-factory-kitchens-freed-soviet-women-history
Categories: Philosophy
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a Reply