Talk:Nazism and socialism

Template:Oldpeerreview

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

• Talk:Nazism and socialism/archive 1
• Talk:Nazism and socialism/Delete
• Talk:Nazism and socialism/archive 2
• Talk:Nazism and socialism/archive 3
• Talk:Nazism and socialism/archive 4
• Talk:Nazism and socialism/archive 5

---

Contents

1 Socialist States not Socialist? 2 degenerated workers state 3 Socialism & Privatism 4 Unjustified Reversions 5 rv 6 Looking Good 7 Capital 8 NPOV 9 Deletion

Socialist States not Socialist?

"Income and distribution were subject to social control by mandates and laws which put business in the hands of a political order..." For "social control" you need democracy. AndyL 14:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But Andy, that definition would exclude the Soviet Union equally with Nazi Germany. I think we need to stay away from definitions that would exclude states which are conventionally considered to be in some sense "socialist." john 15:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the USSR under Stalin and his successors to be socialist. In any case, I'm merely applying the Britannica definition that Sam provided. However, supporters of the Soviet Union would argue that the USSR did have democratic bodies and would argue that societal control was exercised through the Soviets and the Supreme Soviet (I and many others would say that these bodies were not truly democratic but that's beside the point). This was the case formally, at least. In contrast Nazi Germany suspended the Reichstag and all representative bodies so there was not even a pretense of societal control or democratic institutionsAndyL 22:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC).

OK, what do you think is socialist then? There is something called Falsifiability. Are their any examples IRL, or is a pipe-dream only thang? Sam Spade 00:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's quite simple, actually. My personal definition says that a socialist state is a state that meets 4 criteria:

1. Workers' control over the means of production.

2. Democratic government.

3. Planned economy.

4. A strong welfare system, involving free education and free health care.

If a state only meets one or two or three of those criteria, then it's not socialist. This is only my definition, of course, but I think it's a damn good one. :) Mihnea Tudoreanu

Which is as it came out after Marx's POV critique; i.e. Communism. simple Socialism is usually state Socialism or anti-state Socialism with only redistribution. Nagelfar 08:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course. And it's a little difficult not to be POV, seeing how there are so many groups that call themselves "socialist" that finding an all-encompassing definition would be nigh on impossible. So for my personal use, I limit the term "socialism" to traditional late-19th century post-Marx socialism, and/or the system supported by Lenin and Trotsky. I use "stalinism" to refer to the USSR and other similar states, "communism" to refer to the classless and stateless society that is the ultimate goal of most socialists, and I use the term "social democracy" to refer to modern welfare states and European socialist parties. Again, I must point out that this is only my personal classification, but I've found it's a good way to avoid confusion. Mihnea Tudoreanu

Yes, but still considering Socialism purely by it's post-Marx understanding isn't seeing Nazism's view of it with how Nazism as a movement basically set against the growing established trends in politics by compounding wide social theories to set against alternate social ideologies which were common to them. This is how Nazism was Socialist. It lacked it's indiscriminate spirit but used it's actual utilitarian welfare-equality within introverted considerations & specfic means quite different from Italian Fascism's corporative tradition structure & privilege enabling ideology Nagelfar 09:27, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally, Sam, I think socialist regimes ought to be defined as those which come out of a fairly specific historical socialist tradition, which is pretty easily definable and which pretty clearly exclude the Nazis. john 01:11, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the Socialist tradition gave Nazism it's identity, rhetoric, and bent in a way of conceiving a Nation as an eternal involitable principle through a centralized acted out preservation for it. It all comes out of how the concepts 'Nationalism' & 'Socialism' can converge with the least amount of obscuring one another together as one ideology, outside of simple statism. Of course that couldn't carry on the tradition of Socialism for different Socialist movements because it was too highly qualified to the German condition then alone to be used within that pool of Socialist ideas that can contribute to the type of Socialist history that can be looked to for those who want to apply Socialism for their own welfare, but Nazism did take it's spirit from a extremely focused Socialist tendency and inspiration, as well as application. The people for them, had a duty to the rest of the people, it didn't undercut individual capital like Communism but it was held accountable for through a Socialist state jurisdiction to responsibility for output of one to another just as Soviet sectors had managers appointed for such causes, the Nazis used the infrastructure that was already in place and Socialized it by having set down punitive standards that saw them through. It was state Socialism and I'm not arguing otherwise there, but it was a statism of Socialism not class conventional defending Fascism. Nagelfar 07:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Socialism is not synonimous with "statism" or "big government". Certainly, "big government" may be seen as an element of socialism, but it's only one among many. And there are scores of clearly non-socialist systems that involve "big government". Nazism adopted a superficial resemblance to socialism, but that's where the similarity stops. Consider the fact that socialism exalts equality, while nazism exalts inequality. Mihnea Tudoreanu

I agree completely with the first part, and never have I said Socialism meant statism. Nazism however did exalt equality, within race, that was their entire purpose. Unlike Fascism which was against equality. That is why Nazism is 'National' Socialism & Fascist statism is anti-Socialist. The German government had to face a interim situation facing war and could never reach the full stage of Socialism, but the entire pretext was set down to eventually reach this in peace time. Nagelfar 08:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Equality within race essentially means that "some people are more equal than others", which is no equality at all. And even among the "aryan race", Hitler wasn't exactly "equal" to everyone else... Mihnea Tudoreanu

But it is completely different from class preservation. Egalitarianism isn't considered the same from a Communist & Libertarian perspective either. Nothing is fully Egalitarian without excluding a different spectrum of Egalitarian equality. Again, it was qualified as "National" Socialism, so it was more tightly defined than the open term of "Socialism" alone, however it was nationalistic through the pretenses of Socialism & Socialist thought. Nagelfar 09:19, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I concede that the USSR and its satellites come out of the historic socialist tradition even if they corrputed it.

"Are their any examples IRL, or is a pipe-dream only thang?" False dichotomy. I don't think any of the states now existing are truly socialist though Cuba probably comes closest (though it falls far short). I would concur with the Trotskyist analysis that the USSR under Stalin was a degenerated workers state. AndyL 02:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

degenerated workers state

I think this is a particularly accurate description of Nazism. It was originally very left wing economically despite its authoritarianism (Stalin was likewise Authoritarian AND left, it isn't necessarilly a controdictory combo) and continued to be in its propaganda (altho I will agree not so very much so in practice) even after the night of the long knives. Strasser WAS left wing, and was 2nd in command, even filling in for Hitler for a time. I think we can easily wrap this article up if we acknowledge that:

• Socialist propaganda and socialist state practice have often diverged significantly

• Nazism had a significant change of direction after the night of the long knives

• The terms left/right are imprecise, and awkward terms, and should only be used with strict clarification of what exactly is ment, and when it was ment that way

• The term "socialism" itself is contentious and nebulous, largely due to rhetoric failing to correlate to reality in practice

I think if we can do that, we can allow the reader to make up their own mind about what Nazism was, and they will probably discover its a rather mixed bag, dependant on largely arbitrary definitions of esoteric terms

Sam Spade 06:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, Germany was never a workers state so it couldn't be a degenerated workers state. If you're so convinced of Trotsky's analysis of the USSR you should read his analysis of fascism and Nazi Germany Fascism:What it is and how to fight it (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm). You're grasping at straws and you still haven't explained how Nazi Germany meets the definition you cite regarding social control over the economy. AndyL 06:28, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The brownshirts were about as working class as it comes, and I have no interest in reading your books. Please remember, you must be respectful enough to earn a thoughtful conversation. Sam Spade 06:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The brownshirts were probably working-class for the most, yet that does not make the nazi regime a "worker's state" – the Nazi regime was a populist regime. Of course, you may argue that Ernst Röhm and much of the SA leadership were "leftists" economically, but the fact is, as you point out, they were murdered so early in the accession of the Nazis to power that it does not really matter. The Nazi state, as established, was economically semi-statist, or, more appropriately, as we say in France, dirigiste: while not exercing direct public control over factories etc..., it intervened in the economy. (Note that this is not original: for a number of years, the French government was dirigiste, and the US government is also dirigiste, albeit less visibly.) David.Monniaux 07:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely, except that I feel you minimize the importance of early ideas, and later propaganda which was socialist. No socialist state is truely socialist, according to some idealists, but they all claimed it, and all share similar ideas/propaganda, esp. early on. Anybody who thinks soviet workers controlled the economy is out of their minds of course, and I am sure no one is claiming that. Nazism similarly conducted the socialist "bait and switch". Sam Spade 07:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My dictionary says that Socialism is a political theory advocating the public ownership of industry. Has Nazi Germany nationalized its industries? No. In fact, it let large capitalist groups (Krupp, IG Farben, etc...) prosper. It was therefore not socialist by the dictionary sense.

The Soviet Union was socialist in the dictionary sense, but undemocratic.

Which "Socialist bait and switch" are you talking about? David.Monniaux 07:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most dictionaries are retro-active from Marx's theories, privatism existed in Socialism and wasn't obliterated, it only had an equal levelled-welfare redistribution of ownership. The Capitalist societies who made most of the dictionaries wouldn't have dared to differentiate 'godless Communism' from just 'Socialism' from the beginning of the 20th century, and it's simply been carried on due to a tradition of conventional definitions within the academic dictionary publishing community. Nagelfar 08:48, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except that while capitalism was abolished in the USSR it was not in Nazi Germany.

Sam, I suggest you follow your own rules regarding civility. I've seen many instances of you descending into petty insults around wiki. It's a shame that your view of civility somhow allows you to be insulting and dismissive but does not allow anyone to calmly refutate your analysis, point out errors or contradictions in your logic or pose questions you cannot answer. Somehow, by pointing out that you had completely misread John's posting earlier on I was being "uncivil" :)

Again, you have yet to explian how Nazi Germany meets the definition you cited of a state in which there was social control of the economy. And if you read the definition of degenerated workers state you'll see that it describes a state in which capitalism has been eradicated, clearly that was not the case in Nazi Germany. The commanding heights of the economy were not expropriated, private enterprise and private profit flourished. As far as Strasser is concerned the brothers were purged before the Nazis came to power as I recall and as you well know the Nazi party operated under the "Fuhrer principle", all that mattered was what Hitler thought and he was not a socialist. What his underlings may have thought prior to the Nazi seizure of power is of little consequence as can be seen by their fate. AndyL 07:28, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That the Nazis made individuals accountable to the people themselves with their own personal acquisition by having the state remotely direct means of production instead of manually apprehending it by an authorized state force, was more truly Socialized in nature than common "left" state Socialism because it was done by the hands of the workers themselves. post-Strasser. Hitler always considered himself a 'National Socialist,' and thought his form of Socialism was pure in contrast to the Marxian type of those he purged who were for 'permanent revolution' Nagelfar 07:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How did the Nazis make "individuals accountable to the people themselves". What evidence is there of this? Were the Krupps made accountable? Or any of the other industrial families of Germany? The workers had no power in Nazi Germany, your argument that the workers somehow controlled or directed the means of production has no evidence behind it and is not supported by any historians I know of. AndyL 07:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes the industrial society & labor front was responsible for employing as many as possible for the rehabilitation of social ordinances through the state's contracting of them which would further increase the nation's modernizing technique to a level where nothing earned by any company had value outside of for the general populace. It certainly wasn't a Communist Workers state, but it was Socialist. Like Capitalism the workers controlled their own means *to* production, they were not placed in their field like in the Soviet Union, those industries that made due and submitted to German state provisions gave their civilians full choice to their line of work and even honourary station in relation to their Social character (to the level they personally represented the German ideal physically, even) education was no longer a great factor as willingness to the national community superseded placement, and real experience was held above conceptualization & static opportunism for aimless business progression that didn't yield for the states standards of it's people; it was socialized capital. Meritocratic, yes, but egalitarian among the excelling; those not 'asocial.' Laws made sure whatever individuals had control over went back to the nation for the people, full employment by 1936 with labor shortages even shows a all inclusive model by a increasing state's vacuum for workers. It was part of the 'Sonderweg,' private ownership was only the enemy of Communism, used rightly it was the friend of Socialism and enemy to both bourgeois Capitalism & Communism from a National Socialist perspective Nagelfar 05:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Socialism & Privatism

Privatism as early law dictionaries used it didn't exactly mean what it means now when Socialism was an early movement. It meant cutting off from the masses, 'privative' meaning 'removing' through being kept for particular classes, outside of the question of allowing individual ownership as the condition by which material accessibility is ultimately given, i.e. all individuals being 'private' persons wouldn't have been used in that sense as it would have sounded silly to them. the Socialism's that did use 'anti-private' terminology originally very likely had 'private' defined differently than how Communism later came to mean it. Further confusing the two government types. They were founded basically as fitting terms for their ideas, Socialism being a 'social' minded movement of respect to necessary different services provided by each aspect of society, and Communism seeking to 'Commune' the people together in common. But they are fairly different from one another. Nagelfar 06:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really don't quite follow you. David.Monniaux 07:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From dictionary.com; 'Privative' - "Causing deprivation, lack, or loss" Nagelfar 07:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, there's even better: dict.org has a marvellous Webster 1913 (as well as other dictionaries) that you can install locally on your machine. David.Monniaux 08:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unjustified Reversions

Sam, I'd appreciate it if you followed your own "harmonious editing rules" and stopped reverting without discussing it here first, particularly as you are removing factual information. AndyL 07:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you keep trying to remove the following:

"After Mussolini's fascists took power in Italy in 1922, fascism presented itself as a realistic option for opposing Communism particularly given Mussolini's success in crushing the Communist and anarchist movements which had destabalised Italy with a wave of strikes and factory occupations after the First World War.

Many historians such as Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that Hitler and the Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-socialist, anti-liberal movement and, eventually, of the German state."

The above statement is factual. Mussolini did crush the Commuinist and anarchist movements, those movements had led strikes and factory occupations prior to 1922 and the fascist success in defeating the Commuinist threat did make fascism appealing to others who wanted to defeat Bolshevism.

Tha Nazis were one of numerous fascistic groups contending for power in Germany in the 1920s and they were trying to lead an ant-Communist movement. I'll change anti-socialist to anti-Communist but the statements are factual. Stop removing them. AndyL 07:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Saying that Nazism was 'statist' rather than "fascistic" may be more NPOV also Nagelfar 07:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not really since fascism was highly statist. AndyL 07:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That it was highly statist doesn't mean that Nazism's extreme statism had anything to do with Fascism's extreme statism. Nagelfar 07:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it was just coincidental :) AndyL 08:41, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see much of a relation for there to have been a historical coincidence at all, just an alliance. Fascism was a system for a 'pyramid of state' Nazism was more of a funnel. Even many academic historians see Fascism as having more differences with Nazism than similarities; Gilbert Allardyce, Renzo De Felice, Saul Friedlander, Klaus Hildebrand, Henry Turner, Bernd Martin, Karl Bracher, and probably many more. Nagelfar 04:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

rv

"These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once". They would often propose options on the talk page BEFORE making edits to the article. They might even wait an hour or a day for assent from others before making changes. They will also be eager to request community involvement and/or peer review, wherever necessary."

Sam, given that you've revereted more than once and that you haven't discussed the options on talk before you've edited the article I put to you that you are not following the rules of the club which I believe you yourself founded. You're not setting a good exampleAndyL 07:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reverted once, and won't revert to the same edit again. You are trolling, and I don't intend to communicate with you further. Sam Spade 07:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looking Good

If anybody is interested the passage I wanted removed was this

'Hitler and the Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-socialist, anti-liberal movement and, eventually, of the German state'

along w unclarified mentions of left/right. They have been removed, and I am very glad to see the article shaping up. Sam Spade 07:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"I reverted once, and won't revert to the same edit again." No, you removed that pasage twice, at 5:59 and 6:36 am. AndyL

I've tried to add a bit more pertinent information and remove some of the subtle POV. I think the entry is a bit better now, but there's still lots of work needed - especially on the massive central bit about class conflict and support for Capitalism. But I'm not sure this article should exist at all. 99% of people wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that the Nazis were Socialist, and the current article is unlikely to convince the other 1%. Couldn't it be condensed into a section duplicated on the existing Socialism and Nazism pages, briefly explaining that the Nazis were not Socialists? We have a very long article written to refute a view propagated by a handful of right-wing post-modernists. We may as well have a page to refute the charge that Communism and Capitalism are one in the same. -- 62.6.127.107

The purpose of the article is to be NPOV, the majority contemporary POV doesn't make it NPOV nor is coming to the article with the assumption that seeing the Nazis as Socialist is a 'mistake,' which is also completely POV. Even worse is the stereotype that such a view is made only by the economically conservative, seeing it as propaganda could only be from the preconception that association to Nazism makes something intrinsically adverse. This should solely be for describing political science & the original manifestation of third position meta-politics with Nazism.Nagelfar 04:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capital

AndyL -- Re: your changes. Socialism should be capped in this context. Same for Liberal and Conservative. In a political context, all of these words should be capped. Otherwise, a "conservative estimate" becomes only the Conservative party's spending predicitons, a "liberal helping" becomes assistance from a Liberal MP and so on. -- 62.6.127.107

Perhaps someone with a style dictionary can confirm or deny this but in my copy editing class we were taught that you cap parties, not ideologies unless they are named after a person (with one exception I'll mention in a moment). You cap liberal if you are talking about a member of the Liberal Party but if you are describing a left leaning member of the US Democratic Party that person is a liberal Democrat. A Leninist is capped because the ideology is named aftter a person, same with a Marxist but a socialist is not capped unless he or she is being referred to in the context of belnging to the Socialist Party. We cap Nazi because that refers to the Nazi Party (even if Nazi is a nickname). The general exception is with communist. If one is referring to the pro-Soviet movement then you refer to a Communist but if someone isn't a Moscow-line ideologue than he or she is a communist. AndyL 16:59, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let me give you an example of why it's necessary to cap parties and keep ideologies in lower case.

In Canada we have a lot of conservative Liberals and a few liberal Conservatives. At Canada's inception we had the Liberal Conservative Party which tended to be conservative and the Liberal Party which tended to be liberal. However, there are periods in our history where the Liberals have been more conservative than the Conservatives. In Australia, of course the Liberals are conservative. Labor though has moved towards a liberal position on the economy while the Liberals tend to be conservative. In Canada, we had Progressive Conservatives but that party doesn't exist anymore. However, even when it did exist most progressives tended to vote Liberal or NDP rather than Progressive Conservative . We have the social democratic New Democratic Party, though that party has a number of members who are more liberal than social democratic.

The liberal Democrats in the US have a lot in common with the Liberal Democrats in Britain. In the 80s, Labour was social democratic but to the left of the Social Democrats.

In Britain, there are a number of members of the Conservative Party who are liberals, such as Portillo but most Conservatives tend to be conservative. In the US we have a conservative Republican Party and a liberal Democratic Party. There use to be a Liberal Party in New York state but that doesn't exist any more. AndyL 17:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Socialists strongly deny the claim that there exists a relationship between Nazism and socialism

^This immediately takes the position that the Nazis weren't Socialist in their Nationalism by claiming broadly that Socialists refute association to Nazism. 100% POV. Maybe it should say "many Economic Socialists" or "many social mutualists" Nagelfar 05:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

or the phenomenon of liberal Communists calling themselves Socialist because (and I admit this is POV but only as reasoning for definitional divergence) of a misconception that Communism was the totalitarian version of Socialism?? Nagelfar 05:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, dear god. How about "Mainstream socialists"? john 05:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I made the change, w a subtle distinction. Sam Spade 06:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At one extreme, socialism may be regarded as the antithesis of Nazism; at the other, Nazism and socialism have been interpreted as being forms of totalitarianism (usually when socialism is associated with authoritarian Communist regimes such as the Soviet Union) .

I don't see, even if Socialism was meant to be public ownership like Communism, how it is the antithesis specifically to Nazism, nor do I think Nazism's form of Socialism lay in it's statism or totalitarianism but rather in it's guided welfare practice. The ultimate question is whether Nazis care & reinforcement for the German type made it Socialist if Socialism itself wasn't defined as legal public ownership but redistribution of existing ownership as that contrasts Communism. Nagelfar 06:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Socialist parties in Germany most firmly opposed Hitler throughout his rise to power, and remained the most opposed to him in exile or underground during his period in power. They were also seen at the time to be at the opposite pole of the political spectrum from him. john 06:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These 'Socialists' who opposed Nazism were self proclaimed Communist & Bolshevist parties. There were no other 'Socialist' parties in Germany at the time just the Communist & National Socialist. Highly nationalist-capitalist parties opposed the Nazi party, such as the "Deutschnationale Volkspartei" (DNVP) & "Deutschvolks Freiheitspartei" (DVFP) Nagelfar 07:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I don't even know where to start.

1. The Social Democratic Party of Germany? Look into it. Some admirable folks there.
2. The Deutsch Völkisch Freiheitspartei (DVFP) merged into the Nazis in the early 20s. They were an extreme racist, anti-semitic party, and the two parties jointly ran Ludendorff for president in 1925, for instance.
3. The DNVP was largely pro-Nazi. It competed for votes with the Nazis, but ultimately saw the Nazis as a potentially valuable ally in the fight against socialism. Hitler came to power through an alliance with them.
4. Other bourgeois parties like the Catholic Centre, the DDP, and the DVP were less pro-Nazi, but even they did almost nothing in terms of actually resisting the Nazi takeover. The Zentrum tried to negotiate to form a coalition with Hitler in the summer of 32, and all of them voted in favor of the Enabling Act.
5. And lastly, why on earth do I have to sit here explaining extremely basic facts about Nazism and the Weimar Republic to people who clearly have only the foggiest understanding of the actual history of Germany or of the Nazis? This is ridiculous. I try not to involve myself in discussion of things I know absolutely nothing about. Perhaps you should do the same. john 07:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The DVFP did not merge with the Nazis, they merged with the DNVP to oppose the Nazis, only once the Nazis did assume power was the DNVP forced dissolve with it's members joining the NSDAP. As for the Social Democratic party, they weren't Socialists, even the Communist parties opposed them and were in favor of the Nazis ousting them. Nagelfar 08:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is becoming less and less an encyclopedia article and more an undergraduate essay. I'm becoming more inclined to think this article doesn't belong in wikipedia and is a candidate for VfD. AndyL 06:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I haven't even dared to actually look at it in toto in quite a while. Maybe we should merge content into Nazism and redirect? john 06:34, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"These 'Socialists' who opposed Nazism were self proclaimed Communist & Bolshevist parties. There were no other 'Socialist' parties in Germany at the time just the Communist & National Socialist. Highly nationalist-capitalist parties opposed the Nazi party, such as the "Deutschnationale Volkspartei" (DNVP) & "Deutschvolks Freiheitspartei" (DVFP) Nagelfar 07:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) "

The Social Democrats opposed Nazism. The SPD remained Marxist until the 1950s. There were also several smaller socialist parties that opposed Nazism. No socialist parties supported the Nazis while several capitalist parties did. AndyL 07:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And the Social Democrats were opposed by the Communist party. The Nazis were unconventional Socialists, so it's unlikely that other Socialists would approve either way, the "Tat Kries" & self described 'National Bolsheviks' were also opposed by conventional Communists and they believed in abolition of private ownership as much as them, so it's no real point. Nagelfar 08:09, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Andy, copy edit your latest changes. john 07:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm seriously beginning to think that this article ought to be deleted. It just seems silly to have a page dedicated to comparing two things, when most people reading Wikipedia would probably be happy to read the article on Nazism, read the article on Socialism, and then make up their own minds about how they related. It's not as if we're discussing any mainstream historical interpretations here; it's just an oppertunity for the Hitler=Marx=Sweden=Socialist=Bad kooks, who have a sort of inverse-Marxist tendency to see every event in history as a vindication of Laissez-faire capitalism, to give undue prominence to their views. Cadr

Yes, I'm beginning to think so as well. As long as this article exists, it will be the target for nonsense. Let's just excise any useful bits to Nazism and then redirect there. (That way we don't have to go through VFD) john 14:41, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True, but it might be better to go through VfD for political reasons. It would be good to get a general consensus that the page shouldn't exist. Cadr

I disagree. A person ignorant of 20th century history and political theories may well ask herself how similar these two doctrines with similar names are, especially if both of them are spoken ill of. This page presents a number of decent arguments.

Of course, this page, like many pages on Wikipedia dealing with political issues, is a natural target for vandalism as well as for kooks advancing political agendas. Perhaps it's too nice a target for the obsessions of some. Well, I don't think that should deter us. The problem has more to do with the "open to all" Wiki format than with other factors peculiar to this page among all controversial political pages (and "controversial political" is a pleonasm). David.Monniaux 15:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think this article should exist if its only purpose is to make it clear that National Socialism was not (according to most historians) a form of Socialism. This could be accomplished quite easily with a brief note on the Nazism page. Some of the discussion on this page is interesting, but (and I know this can be an anoying criticism) it's not really encyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles are usually about something, whereas this is an article on two unrealted political ideologies explaining (in essence) why there is no reason for them to be grouped together. If it's OK to have an article like this, I do wonder what will come next. How about Nazism and Capitalism, Fascism and George Bush, Hitler and David Beckham, etc. I don't have any very strong objections to this article existing, but I do wonder if we might not be expending a lot of effort on something that shouldn't really be here. Cadr

"the Hitler=Marx=Sweden=Socialist=Bad kooks, who have a sort of inverse-Marxist tendency to see every event in history as a vindication of Laissez-faire"

^Well, being that I am not a minarchist/libertarian or a Socialist=bad person, but simply an individual with a profound interest in the open progression of meta-politics rather than stereotyped linear black & white "good versus evil" politics of any type, then I do not see how this is agenda oriented whatsoever (except from a paranoid POV maybe). Nagelfar 08:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry if I offended anyone with that comment, as you can probably see I was a little frustrated when I wrote it. What is "meta-politics", by the way? Cadr

Metapolitics are "Eclectic" politics. Political thought taken from two or more theories which are generally seen as juxtaposed, or opposing 'opposites' made to work together in a new way. "meta-" is related to the Greek "Meso-" meaning 'Middle' but it's different in that it also carries the connotation of "Changed" or "transcending" instead of simply 'moderate.' My personal observation of the Nazi regime after years of study, is that it was certainly not the first regime to take from different sources, but was the first to take from seemingly both 'incompatible' contemporary extremes in one way or another. In this context the perception of Mussolini having made Fascism's colour black, & Socialism having considered it's colour as red, it makes more sense yet why Nazism was called 'brown' by the Nazis themselves. Nagelfar 05:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like metapolitics is a confused mess, then. I hardly see that Nazism was the first political ideology to take ideas from seemingly incompatible extremes, if indeed it did that at all. Cadr

Sounds to me like another example of postmodernist "analysis". I think both Marx and Hegel would argue that forging a new reality out of seemingly incompatible extremes has happened throughout history and is a matter of dialectics. "Scientific socialism" (ie Marxism) for example could be described as a merging of utopian socialism (which tended to be agrarian and anti-industrial) with postivist (if that's the word) ideas about the desirability of industrialism. Anyway, I may have a bit of colourblindness but I don't think red plus black gives you brown:) AndyL 00:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe when no physical artist's medium is involved for colour and one considers it a compromise ;-p & I agree that the dialectical process theory has been attributed to the rising of different matters for the ideas of all politics within one single sided methodology or another. How I meant that was the Nazis were the first to take from the dialectic as political science once established from a perspective and live through it as actually applied outside of the static one sided theories held about it. Meta-politics usually aren't refered to within the context of a dialectic progression so much as a subjective eclectic. Nagelfar 07:46, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyhow, I do believe this page needs to exist and is no way an open invitation to have a comparative page between any two articles if only because "Nazism" (National Socialism) has the other topic's name right within it; "Socialism" Nagelfar 05:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just how many other "and" articles are there? I can't think of any other wiki article that compares 2 things. This one certainly isn't a good enough article to be a pioneer, so to speak. On the other hand, if its more common than I think, than its prob fine to make whatever comparisson articles you like. Anyways, its already been on VfD twice that I know of, and the votes wern't even very close. Sam Spade 06:29, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which is why merging useful content into Nazism and redirecting is the way to go. john 06:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hehehehe... I should hope you intend to acheive concensus prior to such a radical descision? Are you aware that the Nazism article is considered to be about as long as "they" (editors on it) want it to be, which has resulted in other spin offs (see Consequences of German Nazism)? Sam Spade 06:37, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've attempted a merger of the content. So far no objections from the people at Nazism. AndyL 00:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I think it needs paring down. Having an article called Consequences of German Nazism just seems embarrassing to me, btw. john 08:04, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

That was my thought apon finding it, actually. But there are a number of editors on it, admins, etc.. and they seem to feel it was too big for the Nazism article, and that spinoffs are to be encouraged. Sam Spade 08:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Where'd the page go?

Most of it is in Nazism some of it is at totalitarianismAndyL 08:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)