Talk:Nazism and socialism/Archive 2

message: :I agree, but outside of controlling POV I'm not real sure about how to resolve the prob here, I think its specifically a socialism problem, and generally a systematic wiki-POV bias in favor of ... factual relativism. Sam Spade 07:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's certainly much confusion. Hmm, what's factual relativism (red link)? Kim Bruning 11:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 16 hits on google for "factual relativism". Hmm, the fact that people might get accused of factual relativism does seem to be predicted by one of the references for lie-to-children. It might be interesting to dig a bit further at some point. Kim Bruning 11:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[factual relativism]]

message: I've removed the following from the article:
----
==Some opinions regarding what are seen as false perceptions of differences between Nazi's and Socialists==
* Nazis persecuted scapegoat groups such as Jews, Gypsies, and foreigners in much the same way that Soviet leaders persecuted Jews, Cossacks, kulaks, and foreigners.  Both practiced racism, both practiced classism, and 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 or ideology 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 remained in a state of peace with one another for some time 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 was intimately involved with the property and business owners in 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.
Please be aware that some feel that the Soviet Union was not socialist, despite the general concensus to the contrary, and thus would find the above section to be unhelpful.
This is just utter nonsense, and oughtn't to be anywhere. john 06:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree completely, but rather than reverting, lets focus on how this portion might be better worded, NPOVed, or otherwise improved. Sam Spade 06:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: You are not inspiring w confidence as to your impartiality. Do you have some specific objections before I replace what you took out? Anyone else? Sam Spade 07:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: removed from article

message: Gratuitous insults and other foolishness don't make me particularly mad, they just suggest to me that the talk page is not going to be a useful place to discuss anything important until the flamers have moved on. I'll continue to edit the article, and will corrispond via personal talk pages, but clearly reasonable, logical discourse is not on the menu here today ;) Sam Spade 18:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you meant "taking out...competing points makes the article biased, then I agree. (Was that a typo? NPOV is the OPPOSITE of biased, not a synonym. -- Pedantically, Uncle Ed 13:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Looks like I spoke to soon, apparently there is a good deal of interest in rational discourse after all. I've never been one to mind being pleasently mistaken. The reason why I changed so much of Johns rewrite is that he was overly specific, to the point of what I saw as innacurate and misleading statements. Alot of people clearly object to calling nazism socialist, not just 1930's socialists or whoever, and alot of the comments you make about what the man on the street thought about xyz in 1930's germany is simply not verifiable, I don't care how much of an expert you are, I'd like to see that opinion poll. Citations would be great, but on areas where everybody amongst us editors agrees "some think nazis were socialists" or "some think nazis wern't socialists" are just facts, and we don't need to make specific judgements about what kind of perople these were, as such generalizations (about political scientists advocating the term "totalitarian" for example) are pretty much certain to be innacurate. citing particular people who take a stand on this is great, but doesn't by any means encapsle the debate particularly well. This is a debate, not an agreed apon matter, clearly, and should be treated as such. Lets keep up the civility, it's bound to get us somewhere ;) Sam Spade 19:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I think your right, From what I remember, the Nazis were elected in 1933 as a part of a right-wing coalition government, this would hardly be likely if the Nazis were despised by other right-wing parties. I agree with Andy that the couterpoints should be included in the article. I think it's certainly improved as it currently stands. G-Man 21:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Excellent response, John Thank goodness you're around and have the patience to respond as often as you do. 172 22:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|wikiquette]] 

message: most (but certainly not all) members of the working class continued to vote for the SPD or the KPD even as late as the March 1933 elections held shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor.
:Sam Spade 23:36, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  please provide proof of this claim 

message: :This is not what we are ment to be doing here. This is not about deciding if they were or were not socialist. It is about providing info to the reader that will leave them more informed, rather than swayed one way or the other. This is not ment to be a persuasive essay ;) Sam Spade 03:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, indeed, it should not be a persuasive essay, you are correct.  My point was that you, and others, are going to go through the article looking for POV that goes to the idea that the Nazis were not socialists and will use that as an excuse to mangle it and add POV stuff about why the Nazis *were* socialists.  And certainly saying "This shows that the Nazis were not socialists" is POV, and a POV that you would disagree with.  Personally, I don't think "Opponents of the idea that the Nazis were socialist say that this shows that the Nazis were not socialists" is much better.  Rule of thumb: "supporters of this argument" as described in an encyclopedia article should not include the article-writers themselves.  If a historian has made the argument (as I doubt any historians have - most of them don't feel the need do disprove the idea that the Nazis were socialists), then quote them, but Andy does not count as an expert whose opinion is to be quoted.  At any rate, my comment above was infelicitous.  All I was saying was that I want to avoid bad, POV material both from the side I agree with and the side I disagree with.  I am confident that a fair, NPOV presentation of this issue will lead any reasonable reader to agree with me. ;-)john 18:20, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: More valid info, rather than less, is a good thing to be sure ;) Sam Spade 04:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Andy, I agree with you, which is why I put in the part about how the Nazis' only came to power in a coalition with traditional conservatives.  That ought to be enough, and I don't see why this article needs any detail on exactly how that happened.  As far as the communists opposing the Nazis, it could be argued that the Comintern's "social fascism" line, which forbade any cooperation between the communists and the Social Democrats, was at least inadvertently quite useful to the Nazis (also recall the Nazis' and communists' joint support for the Berlin transit workers' strike in 1932). john 18:20, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to have the strongest, most indisputable presentation of the case 

message: There seems to be some thought, on the part of a wide variety of people, that the best way to insure NPOV is to insert lots of weasel words around supposedly questionable remarks, like "what some people call" or "Some people argue" or "Supporters of this argue".  If this is in fact something that scholars argue, find a person who argues it.  If it is something that a wikipedia editor argues, it should not be in the article.  If it is an actual fact, it should be stated as such, without weasel words.  If it is an actual fact, but presented in a POV manner, change the presentation so that it's less POV. john 00:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite your sources and I'll call off my weasels. Sam Spade 00:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: nope, I'll avoid the whole mess by sending in my bold weasels, until you provide a source. And I'm not contesting anything at the moment, I'm waiting until you all take a rest from editing, and I get excitable again ;) Sam Spade 01:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: Against my better judgment, I have decided to put my $0.02 in to this debate. It is impossible to even discuss this topic without relating further to the political upheaval in Germany post-World War I and the various political groupings that emerged. In fact, there was a degree of fluidity in German politics at that time in response to pressing needs imposed on the country by the treaty of Versailles and events taking place in Russia. Politics makes strange bedfellows: for example, both the SD (socialist) and the right were opposed to the Communists (Liebknecht et al.), even though the Spartakists were a breakaway group of the SD--they witnessed the Bolshevik (radical) suppression of the Mensheviks (moderate) in Russia and feared for their lives. They shared a common enemy with the liberals and the right--it did not make them liberals and rightists. They even established their own militia, the Freikorps, to fight against the Communists just as every other party had its own militia, taking advantage of the prevalent militarism and disastisfaction with the terms of the Versailles Treaty. Nevertheless, the Freikorps eventually turned on the SD, and a group of FK officers was responsible for the assassination of SD leader Hugo Haase, for instance. Why did those officers initially choose to go under the aegis of the SD? There are many reasons, not least of which is opportunism. After all, the SD was the largest party in the Reichstag. Nor was nationalism the sole provenance of the right. French excesses in Rhineland and the Saar (as well as the establishment of an independent Austria) fueled nationalist sentiment across party boundaries. Still, the right remained opposed to the SD (and vice versa)--they even called them Bolshevist, though that was empty rhetoric: the term was hurled around as a derogatory epiphet to an even greater degree than "fascist" is today. To make this article worthwhile, one would need to trace the roots of Nazism, understanding that in many ways it is a unique political phenomenon. There is plenty of literature out there on the origins of Nazi doctrine in the Thule Society, Chamberlain, the Social Darwinists, etc., but I cannot recall any linking it to the SD and other socialist groups active in Germany since 1871. Danny 01:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: $0.02

message: Is the factual accuracy of the article still an issue? Can we remove the disclaimer? What about the one on neutrality? AndyL 03:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article now stands, I have no dispute Sam Spade 04:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it looks quite good! I'm very glad and grateful for the work done by native English speakers.--Ruhrjung 14:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: disputes still needed?

message: Industries and trusts were not nationalised, indeed, military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period while independent trade unions were outlawed as were strikes. The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews and these were not retained by the state but sold to private capitalists. 
:I'd like to see some verification and NPOV w this Sam Spade 03:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw that also, don't be rude. Sam Spade 04:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just NPOV it and put it back. Clearly they did not largely nationalize, and they were to a large extent good for business. This is not about Italy, BTW andy. Sam Spade 04:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: from article