Talk:Nazism and socialism/Archive 4

Interlanguage is handy
Instead of just going from memory, I (*gasp*) went and looked up Nazism on the german wikipedia. (It's only a click on de: away, after all). Okay, that was a shock. The german wikipedia (and who could be more authoritative?) doesn't even mention socialism or democracy or anything really. It simply states that nazism was - and unfortunately still is - a racial ideology dedicated to "purity of blood", with almost religeous overtones.

So say we accept the german description as most authoritative on this subject. I'm sure they did their research very well, and they'll probably have had the easiest access to all the relevant documentation.

Having figured that out, I don't really see much point in having this page anymore. A paragraph on Nazism with "While the NSDAP claimed to be Nationalistic, Socialistic and Democratic all at once, they were none of the above" would suffice.

Kim Bruning 10:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article is not about Nazism but about (chiefly foreign) misunderstandings of Nazism. There it has a value. --Ruhrjung 11:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Shall we move the article to Perceptions of Nazism? It would go nicely next to Perceptions of new religious movements which I proposed to replace List of purported cults. --Uncle Ed 17:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How is it chiefly foreign? It discusses the views of various Germans in the 20s and 30s. But, at any rate, the article is not about generalized perceptions of Nazism, but specifically about comparisons between Nazism and socialism. john 17:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RTFIW(Read The Friendly InterWiki) Kim Bruning 18:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't really know how to understand John's question. It's chiefly foreign since ...it's chiefly foreign. :-) It's not a German habit to claim the Nazis to have been "Socialists". --Ruhrjung 20:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I said, the article discusses how the Nazis themselves sometimes claimed to be socialist, and how other bourgeois parties occasionally attacked the Nazis by saying they were socialists. It is not really very common, in general, except among a very small group of very conservative Americans, to claim the Nazis to have been socialists. john 20:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That small group obviously knows how to make themselves heard. I've listened to that assumption/conviction many times in English, but never in French, Dutch, Scandinavian or German. --Ruhrjung 21:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism have long been controversial topics in their own right, and so has been their relationship. Historians and other scholars disagree on such questions as:
 * Can the National Socialist German Workers' Party be considerd socialist purely on the basis of having the word "socialist" in its name?
 * Did Nazism have any roots in socialism?
 * If so, when and how did it emerge from those roots?
 * By the time Adolf Hitler brought Germany into World War II, were Nazi theories, policies or practices in any way socialist?

This is *TOTALLY* *FUCKED* *UP*. No historians or other scholar debate such feeble attempts at throwing dirt. Sure, we can have an article detailing one of the many instances in which the right-wing establishment tries to equate Socialists with the devil himself, but that is not what this article is doing. Instead it tries to find new arguments on why socialism = nazism which is going to far. BL 15:17, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Most historians see Nazism and socialism (particularly Communism) as having been in competition with each other in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and this isn't just "left wing" historians, its also conservative historians and critics of the Soviet Union such as E.H. Carr. The article should reflect that and should be more of a discussion of the conflict between the two with only a minor reference to those who see them as the same thing. IE, the Spartacist uprising and the Munich Soviet, the rise of the Friekorps which smashed those uprisings and itself helped spawn the Nazi movement (Ernest Rohm was a Friekorps leader). The alternating right wing and left wing attempts to seize power (Kapp Putch and Beer Hall uprising vs the Communists 1923 attempt at a revolution) etc. The Nazism=socialism debate is quite minor for mainstream scholars and as we see in this Talk page is really more of an ideological offensive by a small group of right wingers in the US than a serious debate in scholarship. The article should reflect that and should be more about the competition between Nazism and socialism with only a minor section on those who see the two as the same thing. We should also merge this article with the Fascism and Communism article since they overlap. AndyL 18:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Andy, if a competitive relationship is the basis for an article, you might write one up about Nazism and capitalism, Socialism and capitalism, Communism and capitalism, Communism and Socialism, etc. We could draw up trading cards for each. Quite a silly little article, actually. At least Sam Spade's not editing this anymore. -SV(talk) 21:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's pretty much what a "compare and contrast" article does. Since you can "compare and contrast" anything to anything else it opens the door to topics like Fascism and the Republican Party Nazism and the Levellers, Stalinism and Cromwell which is why I tried to reset the article in a historical context rather than the "some of people say they're similar, others say they are different" cast created by Ed's intro. AndyL 23:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this: Nazism and socialism have long been controversial topics in their own right, and so has been their relationship. Historians and other scholars disagree on such questions as:


 * Can the National Socialist German Workers' Party be considerd socialist purely on the basis of having the word "socialist" in its name?
 * Did Nazism have any roots in socialism?
 * If so, when and how did it emerge from those roots?
 * By the time Adolf Hitler brought Germany into World War II, were Nazi theories, policies or practices in any way socialist?

Is that by question 3 suggests that the answer to question 2 is yes and question 4 suggests that the answer to questions 2 and 3 is yes. It's subtly POV. They are the polemical versions of "when did you stop beating your wife" qeustions.AndyL 23:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I see where you are coming from - I agree with you, then. In that case what was wrong with my lead? (pre Sam Spade) -here- which characterizes the "debate" for what it really is, which is polemic inuendo. -SV(talk) 00:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Andy, E.H. Carr was not a conservative historian. When we were discussing his What is History in class, my advisor described his history of the Soviet Union as "Stalinist." I don't know if that's a fair description, but he was certainly rather on the left. As to the big question, the problem is that the whole thing is a mess. I would note, though, that there were contemporary discussions of whether or not the Nazis were socialist, and what their relationship to socialism was, so I don't think the article is completely bogus. john 23:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * John, how does "Stalinist" equate to "rather on the left"? Please enlighten us. -SV(talk) 00:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * My advisor was speaking lightly - I don't think he really meant that Carr was a Stalinist, just that his history of the Soviet Union was rather a sympathetic one. Point was, I couldn't envision someone who had been so described, even lightly, as being on the right. john 08:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well conservative is a relative term:) Carr was not a Marxist though.

" Isaiah Berlin, no less, once remarked that the problem with Carr was not that he was a Marxist himself, but rather that he provided a mantle of respectability for those like Deutscher who were. " AndyL 00:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not a Marxist, maybe, but certainly on the left. john 04:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Progress report
Are we all satisfied that the article enumerates a sufficient number of differences or contrasts between Nazism and socialism? Are there enough similarities, accurately and neutrally presented, as well? --Uncle Ed 14:26, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The article as it now stands is the most biased that I have yet seen it to be. On the other hand I do compliment to positive developments in format and a relatively NPOV introduction, but whoever wrote this sparred nothing to state the nazi's were far-right, and their opposition far left. That of course is not remotely accurate NPOV. This would make a decent persuasive essay, but even then I would expect a bit more impartiality. Sam Spade 18:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the time, the Nazis were certainly perceived as a group on the far right of the political spectrum during the Weimar Republic. I would suggest that this does not necessarily preclude socialistic leanings (and there were certainly some socialistic leanings), nor does it mean that the Nazis pursued a reactionary agenda once they came to power (in some ways they did, in other ways they did not do as their conservative would-be handlers would have liked). john 19:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but have you read the articles on left wing politics and right wing politics? Its not a simple subject. IMO (and others, see political spectrum) the nazis were left leaning economic moderates, which has little to do with their extreme authoritarianism. Stalin was also an extreme authoritarian, but he was very far left economically. Sam Spade 19:05, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In interwar Germany, economic policy was hardly the key to an understanding of left and right. The Liberals, for instance, were generally "to the right" of the Conservatives on many economic issues, at least insofar as they tended to oppose government intervention more (the Conservatives were always trying to get huge agricultural subsidies). The Nazis' economic policies, further, were directed by a former liberal, Hjalmar Schacht, and were largely indistinguishable from those of the conservative Papen and Schleicher governments which preceded it (and, furthermore, these far right governments were much more willing to intervene in the economy than the center-right Brüning government which had preceded them, and pursued a Herbert Hooveresque austerity policy. That is to say, again, that you are confusing a very modern, American view of what constitutes left and right for the idea in Germany in the 1920s and 30s.  There was no question at the time that the Nazis were a party of the right, even if a rather idiosyncratic one.  The racism and anti-semitism alone insured that they would be considered a right wing party, as did the constant virulent ranting against the Versailles/Weimar "system". Certainly the Conservatives considered them a right wing party - Hugenberg of the DNVP was constantly reaching out to them and including them in the anti-Young Plan campaign and the Harzburg Front. john 21:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well then the article is wrong to use out dated terms of left and right without clarifying them, and since the very basis of the article is to try to differentiate betwen modern conceptions of nazism and socialism, or inversely to display similarities, using outdated or areas specific terms like 'lef' and 'right' is prob a bad idea even w clarification. Sam Spade 22:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Left and right are always relative terms. But the meaning as it was in 1920s Germany is a lot closer to the classic meaning of the terms than the definition you're using. john 22:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Clearly I don't agree, but whatever. You already agree w me that therms are relative. This tells me they are unhelpful unless clarified, and prob unhelpful even then, in this article. Sam Spade 22:49, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * But they are contextualized, by the fact that we're discussing the terms in the context of Weimar Germany. And what don't you agree with, exactly?  john 23:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * the meaning as it was in 1920s Germany is a lot closer to the classic meaning of the terms than the definition you're using is what I was disagreeing with. Sam Spade 02:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * SS claims that removing terms like right and left is necessary because they are relative -- true, but of course, only so long as the terms Socialism and Communism can serve as adequate polemic substitutes. In fact it seems as if SS objected to the use of the term "right" to characherize Hitler -- as if it were fine to call Hitler a (leftist) Socialist, and leave people to get the insinuation of Hitlerian "leftism" on their own.  This theme seems to be the basis for keeping this article at all, disguised by weasel terms (some people say...) as an explanation of a "debate" which does not exist, except among people committed to error and fallacy. I will agree with SS that the left-right analogies are useless, and hence this article has no reason for existing, except to explain it as a political jab at Socialism, and hence liberal views.  I disagree with JK's adherence to uselessly dated "definitions" of "classic meaning of the terms" - because it's virtually equal but different kind of relativism as the views of SS.  But in any case, JK at least seems to be operating in the 12th grade, while SS seems to want to hold the article back in the 6th. At least EP's intro frames it rather neutrally.


 * The principal operative notions for partisans of both sides seem to be 1. that historical events and the people that shaped them can be boiled down to political ideologies, and 2. that these ideologies themselves can be boiled down to a left or right view, which somehow fits current polemic terms (which are obfuscated in their own right). So, 2+2=4 -- and it should not be hard to explain how this whole article is based on a couple of rather obstuse fallacies, and that if it were to continue to exist at all, the removal of fallacious (partisan) editors may be necessary to keep "NPOV" edits truly NPOV. -Stevertigo 23:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I take it you will be the first to recuse yourself then? Sam Spade 02:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Is your terse response to a detailed demolishing of your views supposed to be 'clever enough' to evade it's substance? -Stevertigo 04:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wikiquette

 * Please restrict your personal attacks to my user talk, and focus on improving the article when communicating here. Sam Spade 19:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Im truly sorry if you took the above comment as a personal remark. It was not - rather it was a retort to your changing the subject. Speaking of which, you have yet to give a response to the actual substance of my comment, and your allegation of a "personal attack" seems more like a way of avoiding what I said.  If you will accept my apology, please continue by responding point by point to what I wrote above. Thanks. -Stevertigo 00:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) PS: I prefer the more substantive Civility myself. I'm especially proud of this line: We can't always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility. -SV


 * There is no need for me to respond point by point. I agree w pretty much all of what you said, except for your assesment of my views as presenting a left/right dicotmomy (read political spectrum already, will ya? I provide links for a reason, sheash) and your juvenile grade school insults. You can be generally accurate and still be an expletive, but it doesn't get you very far, just ask lir. ;) Sam Spade 02:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

problem solved?
What gave you the idea the article had spontaneously NPOV'ed itself, much less repaired the factual innacuracies which riddle it? Sam Spade 05:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

what do I have to do?
I waited until it was clear that you all were done editing, and then I started to fix up the article. You interupt half way thru, w/o discussing, and undo much of what I have done. This is not the first time this has happened on this page. Normally its a simple give and take, but w this article its all rewrites and overhauls. Can you understand that the article will never settle down until we begin to compromise? I know your at least half-way reasonable, and I'd love to talk about it, but if you can't compromise their arn't many other options than more of the same, ad infinitum. Sam Spade 06:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam, I didn't revert you, which I might well have done, given that you, also, did not talk about the changes you were going to make. I worked with your changes, and just changed some of the stuff.  At any rate, I fail to see why waiting until everyone else is done, and then making a lot of unexplained changes is the way to go about changing an article.  We should discuss our disagreements, and try to come to some consensus, rather than just making changes.  I was going to post a note on the talk page saying much the same, but then I wasn't sure.  john 06:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

hehe, I think I've explained pretty well my objections, and I have yet to see any refutation of them. Sam Spade 06:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that I was looking at my watchlist time stamp, which apparently doesn't automatically change from standard time to daylight savings time, so I thought you'd made your changes an hour or so before I edited, and had stopped, and only realized my mistake when I came on an edit conflict. john 06:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, well that was gracious of you. I personally wait until people are done editing myself, edit conflicts get on my nerves. Plus its more polite, and I thank you for the thought. Anyhow, I thought we agreed that the definitions of left/right changed over time, and are variable, as well as that the left/right dicotomy is likely a false one? Sam Spade 06:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMO it is clear that they are not useful/fair in this particular discussion. For example, nazism has alot in common w chinese communism, or other communist states, and almost none with social democrats, or various socialist radicals and youth movements using the term 'socialist' or 'communist' Sam Spade 06:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as I said, I didn't mean to intervene in the middle of your edits, and I'm sorry about that. As to right and left wing, I agree the terms should be used with care.  But calling the Freikorps "right wing" and Lenin and the Communists "left wing" is not a particularly careless use of the terms, as far as I am aware.  If you can find a source that calls the Spartacists reactionary, or discusses the Freikorps as left liberals, I'd love to see it.  You'll note that I didn't reinsert the description of the Nazis themselves as right wing.  But I think that saying there are similarities between Nazism and Stalinism, say, is not to deny that Nazism is in some vague sense a movement "of the right" and Stalinism a movement "of the left."  At any rate, "what was seen at the time as" is an incredibly awkward phrasing - it's simply bad writing.  As to other changes, things like saying "this is how the Nazis were different from other Socialists" is completely POV, in that it says that the Nazis were socialists.  And you can't just cite laws as supporting a point without explaining them at all.  And it would be nice if you could actually cite scholars who discuss similarities between Nazism and socialism, rather than vague "supporters" of such arguments (at the very least, those opposed to such comparisons can cite "the organized socialist movement" rather easily, although I would agree that there are somewhat similar problems on that side of the debate.)  I also didn't revert many of your wording changes, because I think that some of them actually do do a good job of making the article less POV. john 06:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Political Spectrum
Its going to be a slow slog, IMO, but w a few more polite and articulate editors like yourself we should get their in one peice ;) Do you give any credit to things like the nolan chart? IMO it perfectly illustrates what we are discussing in this article. I actually am thinking of including an image of it within the article itself. Sam Spade 06:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not a big supporter of the nolan chart, for a number of reasons. First, it reduces all political questions to "political freedom" and "economic freedom".  And it goes with the rather ridiculous idea that "right wing" politics is to be identified with a maximalization of economic freedom.  Traditionally, maximizing economic freedom has been associated with liberalism, in the classical sense, which has usually been seen as a centrist movement.  Genuine conservatives in Europe tended to be suspicious of things like free trade in the 19th century, and the same suspicion of the free market can be seen, for instance, in Christian Democracy in Europe today.  The Nolan chart also ignores questions like hierarchy vs. egalitarianism (which is, I think, the basic issue of left and right, at least in the traditional sense), and of traditionalism, which has been a major part of the conservative tradition.  The idea of "economic freedom" as described in the Nolan chart is also problematic.  Are we to make no distinction between Communist economic planning and the traditional restrictions on trade of the ancien régime, for instance?  Are these phenomena really similar in any significant way?  That is to say, it is a very arid kind of politics which is explored in the Nolan chart.  "Left" and "Right" are certainly problematic, but they have a real historical meaning, in that, in most countries, political parties have generally conceived themselves in a kind of left-right spectrum, especially on the continent.  That libertarians conceive themselves to be on a Nolan chart type spectrum is important to understanding libertarianism, but I'm not sure it tells us anything about the political spectrum.  Similarly, while the left-right political spectrum doesn't really explain anything in a vacuum, explaining politics in a way that the people who participated in those politics understood them is very important.  And people in Weimar Germany certainly understood politics to be on a left-right spectrum.  Does this help at all? john 06:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, what about this? I agree w the libertarian centered objections to the nolan test, but this has a similar result, with a different agenda. Sam Spade 07:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Again, I have a fundamental objection to statements like "Once you accept that left and right are merely measures of economic position"...I don't accept that left and right are merely measures of economic position. Perhaps they should be used like that in the future, but this is worse than useless for doing historical analysis, when we should try to use the understandings of left and right which were followed by the actual political movements at the time. Also, notice that just about every contemporary politician in the western world is a right wing authoritarian. Does this seem plausible to you? (I'd suggest that, once again, this one has a libertarian agenda, although perhaps more of a left libertarian agenda than Nolan). Essentially, my feeling is that any scheme to categorize political ideologies is going to be artificial. But schemes that are made up at the present time are much less useful for explaining historical events than the schemes that people at the time usd. That said, I think discussion of ideas like this in the context of comparisons of Nazism to Socialism are appropriate for the article (as I've been saying, it'd be good to actually cite specific arguments, rather than vague "supporters"), so long as they're done carefully - Something about what advocates for a multidimensional political spectrum, or whatever, have to say about similarities or differences between socialism and Nazism. john 07:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[Not] "economic position" - I agree. Nolan test/libertarian agenda - artificial political schematics - agree wholeheartedly. They are useful only in limited contexts - the Nolan chart's purpose was to establish the name of libertarianism as the 'true alternative' to Bakunin-style anarchy, which gets a bad name in the west. It may also be that libertarianism is just conservatism for reformed hardcore conservatives. Who knows exactly - What is in a name? The use of these terms is relativist, I agree. From this discussion, can we erhaps think about defining/consolitidating the more general terms like liberal and conservative etc. -Stevertigo 17:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The introduction to the article
I think there are a couple of problems with the introduction: Hopefully none of this should be too controversial. Any comments? --Cadr
 * The first question ("Can the National Socialist German Workers' Party be considered socialist on the basis of having the word "socialist" in its name?") is surely a little bit silly. I doubt any serious historian would entertain the idea that National Socialism could be considered a form of Socialism solely, or even partly, because of its name.
 * The sentence after the bullets seems to leave out an important POV, suggesting that some people think Nazism and Socialism are complete opposites, while others "argue that Nazism was either a form of socialism or contained some signifigant similarities to socialism.". Of course it's also possible to believe that there are some similarities between the two while also believeing that there is no real connection between them, so maybe this could be worded a bit better.

I agree with both points. Be bold. john 17:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I might disagree with the second, but lets see what you do. Sam Spade 19:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the first point to a form that I think still poses the same basic question but in a more intelligent way. AndyL 02:41, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Good work. Sam Spade 03:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

guilt by association
Perhaps somebody can fit the term guilt by association somewhere. -- Dissident 02:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * whatdya think? Sam Spade 03:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, was that edit intended to make any sense? Because, you know, it didn't. john 05:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Regarding Sam Spade editing the phrase into the article again). The guilt by association fallacy isn't applicable to the sentence "Almost without exception, Socialists deny any association with Nazism". Here, association is intended to mean ideological association, not association in terms of organization. Also, why remove half of the last sentence of the introductory paragraph to edit the guilt by association thing in? Cadr


 * Because it is both silly and innacurate to speculate in this way. We know full well that nazi's considered themselves socialists, not in the sense of Marx, but in the older sense of the word. Sam Spade 22:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * p.s. I didn't just put it back again, I made some changes to it.


 * We do not know "full well" that Nazis considered themselves to be socialist. And in what "older sense" did they consider themselves to be socialists?  Were they Saint-Simonians?  That's hardly less dubious than calling them Marxists. john


 * OK, sorry I didn't notice you made changes. But please understand that there is no general agreement on whether the Nazis considered themselves socialists (although some of their propaganda may have appealed to some socialist ideas). If you have proof that they did, please show it and I'll be happy to remove any speculation, but there's certainly no consensus among historians on this. Also, we are not really speculating, we're just going through the different points of view. Cadr


 * You can look to quotes from hitler and various nazi leaders describing themselves as socialists, or simply the name of their party itself. I can't imagine any informed dispute on the subject of what they called themselves. Sam Spade 22:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Not to get into an argument I didn't see the beginning of, but I think that some historians, at least, contend that Hitler added the "socialist" name to his party because the phrase appealed to the electorate (though obviously they weren't that informed about it, given Nazism's distinct difference from previous forms of socialism in Germany). I'm afraid I have no reference for this.  I know most encyclopedias, though, take a sentence when discussing Nazism to note that "socialist" in their name does not make them socialist: that they actually "corrupted" socialist ideas.  Not that these encyclopedias are therefore right -- sources are important here.  But I thought it was worth raising the point that, in Germany in the 1920s, aligning your party as a "socialist" party was a wise political move (much as the Democrats have long avoided "liberal" as a label given its negative associations with the American public, even though most Democrats would privately admit their alignment with liberal ideals).  My two cents. :-)  I'll get out now, and wish you all the best in reaching a calm and acceptable compromise. Jwrosenzweig 23:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK then, can you give some references to these quotes? (This is not to suggest they don't exist.) I don't deny the Nazis presented themselves as socialists in some sense, to some degree, but the issue is still not at all clear cut because the Nazis were also quite clearly anti-Marxist/Communist. So Nazis' views of what is normally meant by socialism &mdash; not whatever it is that the Nazis meant by the word "socialism" &mdash; are not at all clear, and the issue is controversial among historians. Cadr

Yes, exactly right. Also, that the Nazis presented themselves as socialists in some sense doesn't mean that they actually considered themselves to be socialists in some sense. And it certainly doesn't mean that they considered themselves to be socialists in the sense that anybody other than Nazis uses the word. john 23:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I for one find it absurd to try to fathom exactly what they considered themselves 'actually', rather than what they said. They said they were socialists. The word socialist predates marx. The definition of the word before marx & co. got ahold of it was rather different. Anyways, if you can work in the thing about guilt by association somewheres else, feel free. I assume you know what I was getting at. Sam Spade 23:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * (Honestly Sam, I don't know what you're getting at. I'm sure you're making a valid point, but it would be good if you could explain it more clearly.) The issue is that what the Nazis meant by socialism is not what most people mean by socialism; and secondly that the Nazis presentation of themselves as socialist may simply have been a propaganda tactic. The distinction between a party saying "we're socialists" and that party actually being socialist is surely important simply as a matter of historical fact. Cadr


 * If what most people mean by Socialism is Communism then wouldn't that be a common misnomer that the purpose of a place like wikipedia is meant to inform upon? The further confusion is not only that the Nazis were not Communists, but that their Socialism was introverted (national rather than indiscriminate). So in one sense it was unqualified in the general understanding of the term, in another sense it had another separate qualified aspect which was part of another idea "nationalism." However it was descriptive propaganda more than misleading propaganda, it was Socialism of a more refined purpose, it was still Social rather than anti-social or exclusivist like what the Italian Fascist ideology stood for about the state. Nagelfar 08:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

a) I'm not sure if Sam understands the "guilt by association" fallacy. b) The argument that the Nazis were "socialists" in the "older sense of the word" is as fallacious as arguing they were socialists in any other sense. In practice they were not collectivists but favoured individual competition with power being taken by the strongest. Kershaw goes into that in quite some detail. Yes, they did subsume the masses to the state but then again, so did Louis XIV but that didn't make him or the ancien regime socialist and it doesn't make the Nazis socialist. Sam's argument keeps returning to the fact that the Nazis said they were socialist and and put socialist in their name. Well, read Stalin's speeches and he keeps talking about democracy, as did the leaders of the German Democratic Republic and the other "people's democracies" as do the leaders of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea but we don't have an extensive exposition of that in articles about Stalinism, communist states etc. AndyL 23:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If this is true, that they believed things should be 'left alone' for "social darwinism" of the strongest, then why did they come together to ask people of Germanic features, linage & characteristics to be fruitful and have as many offspring for the nation as possible? They fought to preserve a certain racial phenotype and collectively adhered to this idealism, they made a point of protecting a particular type at the expense of all civil norms regardless of what stresses were put against this type of person who they considered their archetype, it was to be upheld by the social laws by the many at all costs so that it would eventually become the majority, in the face of & in contrast to natural selection left alone. It was Socialism between members of a Social caste outside of classes and outside of prevalent social conditions of the least resistance Nagelfar 08:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Mores the pity, it would give insight into their contridictions if nothing else. guilt by association applies to socialists who secretly acknowledge the commonalities betwixt nazism and other forms of socialism, but reject it due to fearing the negative connentations of associating nazism w anything. Sam Spade 23:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * But who are these crypto-Nazo-Socialists? I don't know any socialists who secretly admit to having a lot in common with Nazis. This sounds like some relic of McCarthyism. Anyway, even if a few such socialists did exist, they'd hardly merit special and unqualified mention in the introduction to this article. Cadr

"guilt by association applies to socialists who secretly acknowledge the commonalities betwixt nazism and other forms of socialism, but reject it due to fearing the negative connentations of associating nazism w anything." Sam, you 're completely distorting the "guilt by association" fallacy and turning it upside down. Guilt by association is when a critic falsely lumps together two disperate things (people, groups) because of an association between them that's irrelevent. If "guilt by association" applies in this case then your are guilty of it (and thus guilty of fallacious reasoning) by associating Nazism and socialism because both use the word socialist. AndyL

According to our own definition "Guilt by association, also known as the bad company fallacy or the company that you keep fallacy, is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organisations who support it. " That's completely different than your application, SamAndyL 16:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we'd better change topics, you don't seem to be getting this. Sam Spade 22:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, one of us isn't getting it;) AndyL 04:24, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Goebbels said, "Germany is a republican Fuhrer-state". He also said, "Besides, I pay homage to the French Revolution for all the possiblities fo life and development that it brought the people. In that sense one could say, if you like, that I am a democrat."

Nazism is called the "Brown Creed".

Hitler said, the Third Reich was a "people's republic"; (eine volkische Republik).

Hitler said, "I am not only the conqueror but also the executor of Marxism--of that part that is essential and justified, stripped of its Jewish Talmudic dogma.". He also said, "This revolution of ours is the exact counterpart of the French Revolution."

Nazism is a democratic movement. A mass movement it is Socialist!!!!!!WHEELER 14:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Songs of the Third Reich Creating page so AndyL can see for himself.WHEELER 14:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hitler said a lot of things, how many of them made any sense? Cadr
 * Anything that stems from the French Revolution IS leftist!!! You and others just don't want to see anything else.  Songs of the Third Reich again prove they were against "reaction".  Reaction are clerics, royalists, aristocrats, and land owners. WHEELER 15:18, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Nazi propaganda doesn't prove anything. There's plenty of historians who see connections between the French Revolution and Nazism (e.g. AJP Taylor) but do not really regard either as "leftist". Cadr
 * Strange how Hitler got on so well with (protestant) clerics, royalists, aristocrats, and land owners, isn't it? At any rate, it's just wonderful that WHEELER has found this page.  Sigh. john 16:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Cadr The whole French Revolution is LEFTIST. LEFT LEFT LEFT.  Adolf Hitler continued the ideas of the French Revolution.  Yes, he did get along with "liberal" christians but not the conservatives.WHEELER 17:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Well if you go back 300 years terms like "left" and "right" have very little meaning. Certainly some of the philosophy that inspired the French Revolution itself was leftist by modern standards, but Napoleonic France was, to a significant extent, a tyrannical police state. Napoleon was perhaps an inspiration for Hitler (at least according to Taylor), but I doubt if the same could be said for Rousseau. Cadr

Great, Hitler's a democrat because he said he was. Let's now start a Nazism and democracy page that can explore the issue of whether Hitler really was a democrat or not and let's make sure its balanced so that half the article is made up of facts which argue why Hitler was a democrat (the 100% turnout in elections - you can't get more democratic than that! That referendum that affirmed his power, you can't get more democratic than referenda! And his statements about Germany being a more democratic than any other nation. AndyL 17:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AndyL and Cadr please chech out the NEW and IMPROVED definition of Reactionary and Classic Definition of Republic. You will notice that the Founding Fathers were reactionaries themselves!!! So.....WHEELER 19:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Funny, I recall you saying a few weeks ago that you could only be a reactionary if you were a monarchist. The "founding fathers" were not monarchists. They rejected King George III and the creation of an American monarchy. AndyL 20:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, if the Founding Fathers were reactionary what does that make the United Empire Loyalists (or what Americans call Tories) who opposed the American Revolution and ended up fleeing to Canada?AndyL 21:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anything that came out of the French Revolution was "Leftist?" Were the Girondists "leftists?" This seems pretty silly. Was Napolean a Leftist too? Is the meter leftist? I think the real question is, what of value has WHEELER ever contributed? Slrubenstein

Well, his terrible edits force us to improve mediocre to poor articles that he adds his bizarre ideas to, instead of letting them fester in their mediocreness. john 04:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Troll Frenzy
The above is what I call a Troll Frenzy. Sam Spade 04:23, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)