Okay, I finished my reading of the latest ARPLAN. With the latest post on my Blog completed, I feel that I should consolidate my observations from my previous comment with this particular comment.
As I had pointed out yesterday, Pan-Germanic Socialism came rather close to realizing a “Germanic Federalism” that would have united the entire German-speaking world into a single nation. It would have had similarities to the American Federalism in terms of organizational and administrative structure, where political-economic power is delegated between a “Reich Government,” the “State Governments” and “Municipal Governments.” The various factions within the five parties at the Salzburg Conference would compete with each other to redefine the original stances of the “Pan-Germanic Socialist Party of the German People’s Reich.”
The American Federalist equivalent would be if the US did not expand beyond the Mississippi River, allowed “another American nation” to form west of the Mississippi River by not agreeing to the Louisiana Purchase, and letting “Pan-American Socialists” take power in Congress and the Presidency in Washington DC in the 20th century. Without those Democrats and Republicans from the Democratic-Republican Party, the Federalist Party would have had Pan-Americans, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists debating not over the size and composition of the Federal government but over the size and composition of the US as a nation.
You are correct in stating that there is nothing unusual about political parties and factions having their own differences over ideology, but Pan-Germanic Socialism is an odd case in the context of Political Science. In the Salzburg Conference, we have people competing to define and then redefine Pan-Germanic Socialism, an ideology caught between its Modern past, Late-Modern present, and Postmodern future. Based on the documentation you provided, I am convinced that there are a number of policy issues which I feel will become increasingly apparent in this Pan-Germanic Socialist Party of the German People’s Reich.
These questions are hardwired into the very name itself, and it would perhaps explain why there appears to be so much confusion over it.
• Is “Pan-Germanism” a ‘Nationalism’ comparable to Prussian Nationalism and Austrian Nationalism? Is it an ‘Ethnonationalism’ in that the German Reich should be defined purely by Prussians or Austrians? Or is it something akin to Pan-Europeanism, where ‘being German’ is equivocated with some attachment and affiliation to the German Essence (as opposed to a “European Essence” promoted by the EU/NATO)?
• If the “Socialism” is not a Scientific Socialism in the Marxist sense, then what Artistic variant is it? Is it even a type of Artistic Socialism to begin with? Are its economic positions supposed to be related to “Corporatism,” like the kind espoused by the Catholic Church or the kind promoted by the Italian Fascists? Is it meant to be some type of Social-Democracy?
• Is the “Democracy” in reference to Parliamentary Democracy, Council Democracy, or a Social Corporatist model more in line with Social-Democracy? Should the Parliamentary Democracies of the German-speaking world be replaced by another form of Democracy?
Had Hitlerism not been brought to the fore, I am certain that Pan-Germanic Socialism would have gone in an entirely different direction. The real challenge then, assuming the German-speaking world becomes united under the most ideal of circumstances, is how the Volksreich would accommodate the multiplicity of different groups within the Volksgemeinschaft. Not everyone within the Volksgemeinschaft is a Pan-Germanic Socialist and not every Pan-Germanic Socialist can be considered part of that same Volksgemeinschaft. Barring the family, the only logical possibility for facilitating inclusiveness is the concept of the Bund. The idea was already there within their conception of Germanic Federalism, only to be ignored later by the Hitlerists.
I believe the heightened emphasis on the Volksgemeinschaft was done in opposition to the Liberal Capitalist conception of “Civil Society,” where “Private Citizens” are bound to a “Social Contract” with the “Market” and “Parliament.” Civil Society would rectify the fact that it is still comprised of Private Citizens by facilitating the existences of other “Civil Societies” that exist in mutual alienation and oppression with it. My invocation of Intersectionality Theory does wonders in helping me identify how this trend occurs across different social groups, even though that it was not what Intersectionality Theory was designed for. It is a shame that the Feminist practitioners can readily identify persons and groups of persons but not the systems that ultimately drive them as in the case of Gestalt Psychology. Chalk that one up to the limitations of Feminism as an ideology past its Third Wave.
Leave a Reply