A very (imo) illustrative sketch of what Spengler considers "socialism", how it's uniquely suited to the Prussian state's development as an organic enA very (imo) illustrative sketch of what Spengler considers "socialism", how it's uniquely suited to the Prussian state's development as an organic entity, and how radically different his interpretation of it is compared to Marx's.
He traces this distinction from the ethnological roots of the two major Faustian civilizations in Western Europe: the English and the Prussian. The former delineates social classes by how much money (buying power) they have, whereas the latter does so primarily by social rank (aka how much you command and how much you obey). Parliamentarianism makes sense in the English context, but is alien when transplanted onto Germany, which has an entirely different conception of citizen-state relations. Keep in mind that Spengler was writing right after the First World War had concluded and the parliamentary Weimar Republic had just come into existence. Likewise, Spengler's criticisms of Marx primarily stem from the latter's thesis being based on English political economics, which are less concerned with the common good and moreso with the advancement of one private interest (workers) against another (bourgeoisie) with the state serving as a weak backdrop.
The distinction above can really be summed up (and this is my very crude attempt at distilling it) as: the English are concerned with the Society of private individuals, whereas the Prussians are concerned with the State of totalized individuals who (ideally) must work for the common weal.
As with most 19th and 20th century European history/philosophy writers, Spengler writes scathingly about the people he disagrees with. It's very entertaining to read. References to the simple-minded "German Michel" and the English as a practical nation of "Vikings and businessmen" abound. A glimpse of his writing:
"We Germans, situated as we are in this century, bound by our inborn instincts to the destiny of Faustian civilization, have within ourselves rich and untapped resources, but immense obligations as well. To the new International that is now in the irreversible process of preparation we can contribute the ideas of worldwide organization and the world state; the English can suggest the idea of worldwide exploitation and trusts; the French can offer nothing.(<--- lmao) We can vouch for our ideas, not with speeches but with our whole existence. The knightly idea of true socialism stands or falls with Prussianism. Only the Church still embodies the old Spanish idea of universality, the care and succor of all nations under the wing of Catholicism. From the days of the Hohenstaufen emperors we can hear the threatening echoes of an immense conflict between a political and a religious universal idea. But at the present moment we are witnessing the triumph of a third idea, the Viking idea: the world not as a state and not as a Church, but as booty for pirates."