Talk:Nazism and socialism/archive 1
|
|
Nagelfar, you are currently stating your personal analysis of nazism and fascism as fact. That is not NPOV.—Eloquence
I agree with Eloquence: this article is currently heavily biased. Most problematic seems to be the introductory text, before the supporters' and critics' positions are summarized. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A few points, with disputed text emphasized:
- The view that the Nazis were socialists is nevertheless rejected among modern socialists and by most historians, since the Nazi movement itself did not exist to the present as there was sweeping denazification of every politic that was allowed to persist following WWII.
- The reason given is an opinion. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Therefore today's left socialists follow a more linear Soviet view...
- First, it's not only socialists who consider claims that nazism were some kind of socialism a smear tactic. Second, why Soviet view? That is hardly impartial and insinuates that opponents of that view were connected with the Soviets. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- ...employed with the sole motive of associating socialist policies with genocide, mass murder, forced labor and aggressive expansionism, which are all based in a historic circumstantial context rather than one of a belief structure of how to internally organize a society.
- To see that this is very non-NPOV, it suffices to read the relevant pages on Nazism, the NSDAP and Nazi Germany here in Wikipedia. Also, invoking the historical context is is often employed as a rhetoric means to dissociate acts from those who acted and their beliefs in an attempt to excuse those who acted and to claim they were not responsible for those acts. Such writing is non-encyclopedic. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Addendum: the whole sentence says anyway that "[socialists consider this label] a smear tactic employed with the sole motive...", so it's highly non-NPOV to add the judgement about this consideration in the "historical context" clause, which therefore should just be deleted. Lupo 15:50, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- ...the black from the Fascist uniform...
- The discussion on the color of the uniforms is irrelevant in this context and furthermore, I have not found any corroborating source for the reason for why the uniforms were brown. The German Historic Museum (http://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/holocaust/r1.htm) just says that the Nazis chose brown to distinguish themselves from the communist red and the fascist black, and also that brown uniforms were cheap at the time because of the dissolvement of the German colonial troops after WW I. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- (Under the heading "Supporters") In support of this assertion, The Nazis openly opposed the workings of unregulated Capitalism, and set up large 'Labor Fronts' and other workers associations.
- Not "In support of this assertion, ...", please. More neutral wording would be in order, how about "Supporters of this position point out that...". To give readers a better chance to assess the reasons why the Nazis did this, I suggest adding Gleichschaltung as a related link at the end of the article. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Lupo has raised a number of valid questions. Would someone please present some evidence of the claims that are made in this article? Let's see some references. For example, the claim that the Nazis "set up large 'Labor Fronts' and other workers associations"--Hitler was profoundly anti-labor. Sunray 09:13, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the Talk:Socialism page, Hitler took control of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; National Socialist German Workers' Party) in 1921. While the original German Workers? Party was both nationalist and socialist, Hitler immediately began putting his own stamp on it. He minimized the socialist features of the program (ref. excellent articles on National Socialism in Groliers and Columbia, by reputable scholars).
Should someone be judged by their words or their actions? In Hitler?s case, while amassing power, he presented himself as all things to all people. When he came to power in 1933, however, he ousted Gregor Strasser and the left wing of the party. He established a corporative state; labor lost all rights. Hitler?s actions and those of his party had nothing to do with socialism. People who have evidence to the contrary, please bring it on. Sunray 09:13, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
The author who had inserted the disputed statements and to whom Eloquence succintly pointed out the problems on Jan 8, 2004 has not bothered to defend his edits until today. I have now tried to NPOV the text without reverting his changes completely, but it's been a tough job, since I consider much of it just a big non-sequitur. I also pared down the supporters' section by summarizing the argument the author tried to make (as I understand it), because giving both views equal space would distort the actual relations — after all, only a small minority tries to defend this claim. Lupo 14:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ed Poor chose to blank this page, rather than edit it. When others had taken the time to start to clean it up this seems pretty high-handed. Ed: Will you please put the text back and edit it in such a way that you will be able to live with it? That is the way of Wikipedia, is it not? How can we work together otherwise? Sunray 16:58, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
It has gone from merely being contentious to being almost pure gibberish. Sunray 17:17, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
- I hereby decree that Ed Poor should not edit this article any more, until and unless Sunray releases him from this ban. --Uncle Ed 18:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thankfully, your humor shows through, even in the midst of an edit war. By the powers invested in me by the goddess of Wiki, I hereby release you from this ban :) Sunray 18:18, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Thanks be, for this magnanimous boon. I feel the rays of sunshine falling on my face once more, released from the murky confines of my dungeon. Wikipedians of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our brains! ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I hate all "XXX and YYY" articles, they suck. They want me to create "Conservatism and Nazism", "Nazism and Liberalism" and "USA and Nazism". However, I wont so you can all breath a sigh of relief.
But I will request that the supporters of the "Socialism = Nazism" idea please move this page to something a little more appropriate like "Thoughts that Socialism is a form of Nazism" or "Ideas common to both Socialism and Nazism" or something. Maybe take Fascism instead. Nazism is a specialization of Fascism and it is probably easier to find similarities between Fascism and Socialism. BL 19:14, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
I agree it is indeed a very silly article about a complete non-subject, but I moved it here to stop it polluting the socialism article. As User:Lir kept insisting upon defining Nazism as a type of socialism. G-Man 19:20, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Even though I may not agree to the existence of this article, may I point out "The Road to Serfdom", by F. A. Hayek, which compared the outcomes of both Nazism and Socialism? It may be of interest for the writers of this article and even for the contents of it -obviously, as an opinion on the subject. Sth like "Hayek, in ... stated that the outcomes of Nazism and Socialism were basically similar: centralization, and slavery of the citizens towards an all-powerful State". Just for the record, I have no aim to fight for this. (Hayek the Nobel Prize in Economics winner).
The comparison between the two really belongs in an Encyclopedia, but I do not know exactly where.Pfortuny 19:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Some confusing text
The view that the Nazis were socialists is nevertheless promoted by some (usually right-wing) groups, but is commonly rejected, in particular also by modern socialists and by most historians.
Problems with this sentence include:
- Labeling proponents of the view as "right-wing" is a smear tactic.
- Saying it's commonly rejected needs proof. A quick Google search reveals several agreements, no disagreements with the similarity thing. If I'm missing something (like proof that everyone thinks this way), please provide a couple of examples.
- Saying that its not commonly rejected needs proof G-Man 20:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Many people consider this label a smear tactic employed with the sole motive of associating socialist policies with genocide, mass murder, forced labor and aggressive expansionism, attributes which they feel are at best characteristic for totalitarian communist regimes.
Problems:
- Stalin might consider it a smear tactic. He's not "many people".
- Please come off it ED its only considered a smear tactic by ooh, perhaps anyone who consideres themselves to the left of Ghengis Khan. G-Man 20:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- What's wroing with associating socialist policies with genocide? Communists, generally considered "socialist", committed 10 or 20 times as much genocide as Hitler.
- You are confusing Stalinism with socialism.G-Man 20:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The Communist USSR require forced labor; didn't Hitler?
- Again you are portraying all of socialism as being totalitarianist communism - a patently absurd claim.G-Man 20:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Nazism and Communism both are notorious for aggressive expansionism.
- Same reply as above G-Man 20:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Seems like the very paragraph rebutting the claim of a similarity between socialism and Nazism actually demonstrates that the claim is true. --Uncle Ed 19:46, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Not all socialists are communists or stalinists. Lupo 09:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I object to this statement, mainly on the grounds that it is utter rubbish:
Stalin promoted a political spectrum in which Communism was the left wing and Nazism and other systems Stalin opposed constituted the right wing.
- Firstly prior to their seizure of power the Nazis were elected as part of a right-wing coalition government, along with several established right-wing parties.
- The Nazis were most strongly opposed by left-wing parties. Who they later destroyed.
- Nationalism a very strong element of Nazism is almost universally considered to be a right-wing ideology.
- The terms left and right wing were coined in the French Revolution not by Stalin.
So the claim that the Nazis "did not consider themselves Right-wing and they were only labeled as such afterwards is nonsense". G-Man 20:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Well, at least I agree with you about one thing: that it would be nonsense to claim that the Nazis did not consider themselves right wing. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The problems with the political distinctions "left" and "right"
Stalin promoted a political spectrum in which Communism was the left wing and Nazism and other systems Stalin opposed constituted the right wing. Other thinkers later came to characterize Nazism and Communism as totalitarian, emphasizing their similarities. Proponents of Communism dismiss this characterization as unworthy of mention, while conservatives, particularly in the West, consider it a mainstay of their political analyses.
This dispute is caused primarily by the inadequecy of the terms Right-Wing or Left-Wing to describe disparate political philsophies. One may instead consider a political system to exist not on a line, with an axis labelled Right or Left, but on a plane with a secondary axis labelled authoritarian or legitimate. Some Socialist governments have tended towards authoritarianism as they seek to control the financial resources of those they govern. For example, Communism, as it was manifest in the former Soviet Union, was centrally-planned and would exist somewhere in the "authoritarian" sector of the political plane.
However, governments of social democracies in Europe and other parts of the world are anything but authoritarian. They present an example of how socialism can be incorporated into a mixed economy co-existing with capitalism. Because the governments of these countries are democratically elected, they can be said to have a high degree of legitimacy.
- In what way is this section pertinent to the question of whether or not NS ideology was a socialist ideology? I don't see this, and I think this section should be removed completely. But do point out that part of the confusion stems from the fact that both the Nazi regime and some socialist regimes are/were totalitarian. Lupo 09:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This article is horrible
I'm about to dispute the factual accuracy and place it on VfD. I will entertain reasons why it should be kept. My reason for why it shouldn't be is that as said above "XXX and YYY" articles are inherently bad, and IMO designed for the sort of POV musings this page appears be. Also, I tried to edit it, and found myself blanking everything, so I gave up and posted this :) Jack 09:35, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Jack, just because you don't like the article is no reason to list it on VfD. The discussion has only started, let's wait to see whether something good comes out of it. Lupo 09:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Definition of Socialism
A big thanks to whoever wrote the following:
- Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This is contrary to the socialist notion of a society for the benefit of all.
I had wanted to make this point yesterday evening, but due to an edit conflict on the talk page I let the issue rest. I see somebody else has made the point now. "National Socialist" ideology was first and foremost a nationalist and racist ideology, emphasizing the "Herrenrasse" concept and considering other nations and races as "unworthy". Such racism is not part of "Socialist" ideology.
However, the definition given later in the article, One definition of socialism is: "a system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, manages, and controlled by the government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole." should be corrected. If socialism is defined like that, one really ought to add "... for the benefit of the community as a whole". And that's precisely the point where "National Socialism" ideology is in stark contrast with "Socialism", for NS ideology effectively replaced that—as far as it had socialist tendencies at all— with "... for the benefit of the Aryan race ." Lupo 09:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
External Source / Llewellyn H. Rockwell
Does this guy's opinion on the matter really deserve mention? First, he seems to be more into economics than history or political science, and second, his "national" vs. "international" distinction is not elaborated on but mentioned in just one paragraph. Also, he completely disregards the nationalist and racist aspects of Nazism. The reference is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject, and the author not an established authority. Lupo 09:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Could we try to work together?
Cross-posted to the Socialism talk page.
There have been a number of disputes over terminology for this article and the one on Socialism and Nazism. I suggest that we try to work together in sorting this out. In recent edits, I have made a distinction between socialist and communist states. If you have a problem with this, would you please read the Wikipedia article entitled ?Communist state? before hitting the delete key. As this project is an encyclopedia, it would seem wise to be consistent in our use of terms.
It would also be helpful if people could provide references for their changes when they are deleting someone else?s text. Sunray 08:39, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. I don't like being reverted. Thats rude. Make improvements, don't revert. Jack 07:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You must have expected that to be reverted. It was horrifically POV. Secretlondon 07:41, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Lets resolve to cite as many sources as possible, and review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as much as possible. Jack 08:07, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nazism vs. Marxism
I think the article proves that the economic policies of Nazi Germany have many contrasts with those of Marxist-Leninist countries -- such as the former USSR. It makes a strong case that Nazism is not a form of Communism.
However, socialism is a river with many branches. Communism is just one form. By forbidding profit, private property and labor unions, Communist socialists sought to control the economy for "national benefit". Other braches of socialism nationalized some industry while permitting other kinds of industry and small business to remain privately owned.
Does this mean that these social democracies are "not Socialist"? No, it means that they are "not Communist".
Communism is not the only form of socialism. It might be the only form of socialism which Communists classify as socialism, but that is only their POV. Other people who write about socialism include non-Communists forms of socialism.
The question is, which forms of socialism are considered "really Socialism" by which writers? Are there any forms which all writers agree on? Or that all but the advocates of one form of socialism agree on? --Uncle Ed 16:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think that there are some general agreements about this within mainstream political science. The thing is, we have to make a distinction between the entries for communism and socialism. As you say, socialism can be seen to include communism. However, socialism can also be seen as distinct. There are, as you have observed, many non-communist, socialist states.
It doesn't seem like it, but I sure hope so... I find Ed's above points to be insightful and necessary. These questions will need to be more than explored, they will need to be answered if the rather lofty goal of making this a passable entry is to be achieved. Any successes here will certainly encourage confidence for Socialism as well :) Jack 13:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, Jack. --Unsolved Equation 16:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the points Ed makes, above. I have been trying to make some of the same points. The second paragraph of the article, as it now stands, doesn't make any sense to me. I thought that we were getting closer with the following wording:
- "While Nazism, i.e., National Socialism, may appear to some as a form of socialism, this is commonly rejected by modern socialists and post-World War II political scientists. The word totalitarianism was coined to address the similarities of Nazism and Stalinism. Thus while there have been totalitarian communist states (such as the former Soviet Union), there are no examples of totalitarian socialist states."
Comments? Sunray 05:54, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
Where are your citations? What evidence have you of these modern scientists and political scientists? Read up on totalitarianism. From what I know, you are mixing up the words socialist and communist. You seem to assume that socialism is anti-authoritarian, whereas Communism is authoritarian. The words "Socialism" and "Communism" are notoriously difficult to define, aused to describe everything from stalin to hitler to castro to social democrats. It is clear that your definitions are not roundly agreed to. Unless we do find concensus on what these words mean, we will need to present the information impartially, saying "some believe" etc... review NPOV Jack 06:05, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Jack, you were the one who made the drastic change to this paragraph. Several people had been working on it to try to come up with a statement that would be accepted by all. Then you deleted significant parts of it. I believe it is up to you to provide references for your changes. If you can't do that, it should go back to the way it was. Sunray 17:16, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
Some definitions
Lots of terminological confusion, and Jack and Sunray are completely innocent: the guilty parties are the words themselves:
- Communism - (a) in Marxist economic theory, the ideal stage of society after socialism; (b) in politics (especially from Western POV), any form of government with a Communist Party or Workers' Party in charge and which claims to follow Marxist-Leninist principles (e.g., USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea)
- Socialism - (a) in Marxist economic theory, a transitional stage of society between capitalism and "communism"; (b) more generally, any economic system which manages production or distribution for the (claimed) benefit of the entire society
Since no nation ever reached the ideal stage envisioned by Marx, one could say the Communist world isn't communist and still make sense to those in the know -- while confusing the heck out of everyone else. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Very true. However, the second definition (i.e., "(b)," above) does describe the social democracies of Europe. We need to make room in the article for this aspect of socialism. After all, this is the distinction between communism and non-communistic socialism. There are those who seem to hold to definition "(a)" and delete anything that tries to talk about that distinction. I would like to get agreement that we use the above definition and then explain that "(a)" is discussed in the article on Communism and "(b)" the main subject of the Socialism article and the definition of socialism used in the Socialism and Nazism article. What do you think? Sunray 19:57, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
- I like your approach. Please go ahead! --Uncle Ed 20:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(b) more generally, any economic system which manages production or distribution for the (claimed) benefit of the entire society
Which ideology (or system) does not claim this property? BL 20:58, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
- If the definition at "socialism (b)" is too broad, we better narrow it down or avoid it totally. Perhaps what distinguished socialism from market economics is the element of using political force to redistribute wealth. I'm not sure if it's a matter of degree or what. America redistributes a considerable portion of wealth and owns a post office and a railroad: to some extent they might be a "social democracy". The most extreme form of socialism doesn't allow any private property (beyond your clothes and toothbrush, I guess) like farmland or factory buildings; everything must be owned by the state, and we can trust them to manage everything for the common good.
- The specific question we're trying to answer in socialism and Nazism is whether Hitler's system was in any way or degree "socialistic" -- or was the term "National Socialism" a pure deception? How about we list some of the essential attributes of socialism and compare Nazism to those attributes, one by one? --Uncle Ed 15:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Quick comment
I haven't read others' comments here, but Norman Davies' book Europe has a good comparison. I am surprised that there is no mention of the Führerprinzip in this article (Socialism and Nazism) or in the article on totalitarianism. --Kaihsu Tai 21:03, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
Profits soared?
Is this really a reason why Nazism can't be socialist? Because socialism necessarilly reduces profits? That sounds like a brutal critique of socialism to me, but hey.... Jack 23:39, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Don't you know Jack - profits are bad! The residues of exploitation! Blah blah blah! This article is getting way POV. - Tim
non-Nietzchean slogans
"*The Nazis believed in neither equality (either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans), collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". Rather they had an elitist view of society asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual would emerge on top. Their vision of social relations was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl Marx."
The Nazis put the slogan "The common good comes before the private good" on all their coins. This is clearly not a Nietzchean slogan, which contradicts the point made on the main article, quoted here. Anyone care to be bold and delete that comment?
Slogans are one thing. Reality is another. Kershaw is quite clear on Nazi practices regarding the elitist principle and their anti-egalitarianism.
Comparisons?
I'm coming to this article new, but this graf is particularly troublesome:
- The name "National Socialist German Workers Party," was a misnomer, much like the "Peoples Republic of China," the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," the "German Democratic Republic" and the "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia." Few would argue that any of the above countries were infact democracies or republics, and it is to this above category that the Hitlerian self-image as a "National Socialist German Workers Party," belongs.
This is opening up a whole editorial can of worms which is not related to the article. One could argue the United States are not "united". We should strike this whole list of examples. Fuzheado 05:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- republics are a bad example. While there is a tradition that holds up a republic as a democratic ideal in modern political parlance all a republic is is a state that doesn't have a monarch at its head so the examples given *are* republics as far as many people are concerned.
--- The introductory text is problematic. You are asserting that comparisons between Nazism and socialism are false (and speculating on motives of those who would compare the two) before establishing evidence--and the evidence provided is very thin. Spend more time documenting the distinctions, and less on trying to browbeat the reader into agreement.
- You are pointing out the fundamental flaw, that this shouldn't be a spin off article, but just one among the others on the list of socialisms. Nazis were racist, and warlike, and placed a low value on life, but none of that is contradictory w socialism. This is all an appeal to consequence, and I don't see anything wrong with the consequence, which is shaming socialism, guilt by association. Just like the Union of Soviet Socialist republics, an attempt is made by some to make things look a whole lot prettier than they should. Pol Pot was a socialist too. Sam Spade 10:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
New addition to the article is very POV
I thought about reverting but I don't want to start an edit war.Saul Taylor 07:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ==Supposed differences that aren't, upon closer inspection==
- Nazis persecuted scapegoat groups such as Jews, Gypsies, and foreigners in much the same way that Soviet leaders persecuted Jews, Cossacks, kulaks, and foreigners. One group practiced racism, the other practiced classism, but both imprisoned and executed people for their identity, not their actions.
- The fighting between Nazis and Communists was really a fight between factions claiming to be the true religion while accusing the other of heresy, much as Communists "liquidated" opposition Socialists in Russia, Spain, and other countries. Despite being supposedly mortal enemies with opposing philosophies, Hitler and Stalin agreed not to fight each other with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and they returned fugitives caught escaping from the other's regime.
- The major difference between economic programs in the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the state owned property in the USSR, while the state owned the property owners in Nazi Germany. Under both systems, prices were centrally fixed, unions were outlawed, and everyone was expected to work for the state, which determined the final disposition of raw materials, final goods, and laborers.
I think this can be carefull NPOV'ed while leaving the facts and general concepts. Sam Spade 19:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how it can be NPOV'd. Use of words like "persecuted" without any examples make it almost impossible to draw comparisons. The burden of proof is surely on the individual who makes the assertion. No proof has been given. Moreover, the writer is attempting to draw comparisons between Stalinism and Nazism. While many comparisons are possible, this article isn't about the comparison between Stalinism and Nazism. I say remove it. Sunray 20:13, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
I'm not sure to what extent "proof" can/must be provided in wikipedia. Must the Holocaust be proven? If not - because it is already accepted -, then why must the Lenin/Stalin terrors be proven? Because we know that they happened with equal certainty, especially since the fall of the USSR and the opening of their files. Also, this article is about a comparison between Nazism and Socialism. One example of the outcome of an overtly socialist movement was Stalinism. The thesis of the Austrians is that Nazism and Stalinism are both the result of taking socialism to an extreme. Many of the points that fall under the heading "Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist" are not NPOV because they do not acknowledge that the same exact things occurred under socialist governments, so I thought I would offer some balance. Must each point in an article be NPOV, or the entire article? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to learn the ropes. Ehusman 01:14, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)
NPOV'ed
I decided to read thru the article for the first time in a long time, and it shocked me severely in how intensely biased it was. I put dispute headers at the top, and fixed everything up as best I could. Feel free to remove the headers if you like my changes, or make your own changes, and we'll leave the headers there until we can all agree that the article is at least somewhat accurate ;) Sam Spade 20:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hitler and Stalin
It seems to me that some people argue that the similarities between Hitler and Stalin proove that Hitler was also a Socialist, while to others it prooves that Stalin wasn't a socialist either. Saul Taylor 01:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Its fine to state that some people feel that way, but only as a POV, and it will need a citation to be acceptable even then. Stuff we think isn't important on article pages. Also, if you can find a citation of somebody imporatnt thinking that, its easy enough to point out that he called himself a socialist, and was the leader of the soviet socialist republics. Sam Spade 02:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
National Socialism and Soviet Communism
The article entitiled Nazism and socialism seems, more than anything else, to be about the the relationship between "National Socialism" and Soviet Communism. It doesn't have much of a focus on answering the question: Was National Socialism "socialist".
Maybe we should move the article from Nazism and socialism to National Socialism and Soviet Communism or Nazism and Soviet Communism. --Uncle Ed 21:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I probably have no idea what kind of minefield I'm walking into here, but isn't it so that the National Socialist party actually had entire street-battles with a german Socialist party in the Weimar era? I did look up the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) who appear to be present and accounted for in the weimar era. They definately don't seem to be have been very supportive of the NSDAP.
Yes, but then the Communists and Socialists had a tendency to fight each other, also. There's nothing like the hatred reserved for the heretic, especially when you're battling for a common core group of supporters (the working class). Ehusman 16:14, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
Well there are some differences between (European) Socialism and (european) Communism. Enough that they are usually considered to be entirely different err.. species. The modern EU was (arguably) set up by socialists. Perhaps the best way to put it is that people in europe who call themselves socialists have come to be advocates of democracy and mixed economy, while communists are "those red revolutionary types". Note that today socialists are commonly also voted into power by the middle class. (Though I'm not certain if they were that popular with the middle class in the weimar era, I think probably they were so to a great degree, else they wouldn't have been considered such competition to the NSDAP.) Kim Bruning 18:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- NSDAP was most popular with the working class, and of course with the ruling class. It was this combination (among other things) that gave them so much strength. The middle class is not known for being particularly revoloutionary. Anyways the word socialist has lost alot of value, and now sems to be a generic term for anything other than laisse fair style economics. That is why it is so ridiculous trying to seperate the two, since they are clearly both forms of socialism, as is totalitarian communism, and pretty much everything else these days. Sam Spade 19:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I was just explaining something like this to wheeler :-). Currently you're probably right. However, during most of the 20th century, socialists were basically the USAs strongest allies (most NATO member nations called themselves socialist), and the USA's strongest enemies were communist. This notwithstanding the fact that... err.. the communists called themselves socialists, and the fact that the americans and the communists both called the socialists capitalists. Um, oh dear. Kim Bruning 20:43, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Whether or not the middle class was revolutionary, Hitler's support came very very largely from the middle classes. The old elites continued, for the most part, to vote DNVP until the end, while most (but certainly not all) of the working classes voted SPD or Communist. Nazism was seen as a bastion of order against socialism by many middle class people. At any rate, this article is genuinely awful. john 00:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)