Talk:Nazism and socialism/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Not all socialists are communists or stalinists. Lupo 09:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Some confusing text

message: 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)
thread_title: The problems with the political distinctions "left" and "right"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article is horrible 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of Socialism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Source / Llewellyn H. Rockwell 

message: 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)
thread_title: Could we try to work together?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Profits soared? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comparisons? 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV'ed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hitler and Stalin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: National Socialism and Soviet Communism