Talk:Nazism and socialism/Archive 5

message: Is a theocracy socialist? The Nazi's wern't far off from a theocracy, even if Hitler wasn't a priest. Look into Germanenorden or the Thule Society if your interested in the Nazi parties real roots. Sam Spade 21:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say theocracies are particularly socialist though you are right about Nazi mysticism. I wouldn't call Germany a theocracy though. AndyL 23:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Christian socialists and social gospel types believe in commonweal. The Nazis didn't. Read Kershaw's bio on Hitler for one, they were quite keen on competition through which the best man would rise above the rest.They really owe a lot more to Nietzche than to socialism (not that Nietzche was a fascist). Unlike Christian socialists they had no respect or sympathy for the less fortunate. People who were unemployed were "shirkers" etc. I really don't see any way that the Nazis were socialists, Marxist or non-Marxist. I think there is an American tendency to conflate socialism with statism and that is probably why this debate seems to exist only in North America and no where else. AndyL 23:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Nazis bought endless ordinances on loan for the public and people, or simply aquired them and had them made. Even the only aspects considered Capitalist would be privately owned industry; which had to serve the state (only against mutualist-Communist standards and not distribution-Socialist), and competition that was seen as the only possible testing ground to what served the whole better and the overall health of the social sphere. However almost none of Capitalism's aspects of Commericalism existed that weren't in the social interest as decided by state priority, Nazism did have a commonwealth in terms of it's exclusivist tendency, families who were considered 'Aryan' were paid for, large families of such were catered to by the state by number of children, the state also acted independently of Market interests to remove who were deemed asocials, it was Socialism through reductionism (also reinforcement of Socialist function through cutting off at the inclusive national sphere), Not simply statism.  Nagelfar 06:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear, Nagelfar! Sam Spade 17:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Theocracy

message: How you could ask me for specifics w the mess things are in is beyond me, but I'll start w the "left/right" lables. Sam Spade 21:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a POV issue.  It's not a factual issue. To have a factual dispute, you need to point to a statement in the article which is factually incorrect.  If you think an interpretation is bad, that's fine, and that's why there's an NPOV dispute, but you still haven't pointed to any actual factual errors. john 21:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: No, it's a POV issue.  Given that every history of Weimar Germany you're likely to find says that the Freikorps, or whatever, are right wing, means that it's pretty clearly not a question of a factual error.  Anybody has the right to claim a problem with POV, and I think you've certainly very clearly outlined why you think the article is POV.  A claim of factual inaccuracy requires that there be something which is definitively wrong.  It can only be wrong to say that the Freikorps are right wing if there's some definitive meaning for "right wing" which they do not fit.  As you yourself have pointed out, right wing does not have a definitive meaning, so your problem with it is a POV issue, not a factual issue. john 21:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: factual acuracy

message: One thing I will say is that the current organization of the article makes absolutely no sense. john 22:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: should we try putting it on VfD again? ;) Sam Spade 22:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree w you 100%, we have unanimity on this at least. :) In my experience the areas where people all agree, they are more likely to be correct ;) Rewrite to your hearts content, I'm feeling largely restful until people are less revert-happy  Sam Spade 00:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Its better. Your not a bad writer, and I never ment you to misunderstand that your additions are largely of quality. The trouble is NPOV. I very much want to see every mention of left/right in one paragraph, w very strict factual clarity and NPOV. That would help alot. Then if we could be careful not to take much of a stand on what exactly socialism means, that would be great. There is a clear emphasis on marx-leninism = socialism in the article, which I disagree w. Also, the majority of  needs to be cut out, moved elsewhere (altho much of it is extremely POV, and I will harry it wherever it might find it home ;) and profoundly NPOV'ed. Its rather long as well, alho as I have been saying, rather good writing. Maybe make a new page for it? Sam Spade 00:48, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is a mess