Talk:Nazism and socialism/Archive 5

Contrasts between Nazism and Socialism
I have much trouble with the following: " There is widespread agreement that Nazism differs from standard forms of socialism in some important aspects:
 * Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production."

^This paragraph claims that Nazism wasn't Socialist by assuming Marxism is pure Socialism with no explaination as to why that's the case. Marxism is in fact Karl Marx's critique of Socialism, called Communism, not original Socialism which had no direct critique of Capital until Marx's 'Das Kapital.' It could be argued that Nazism is more Socialistic in a pure sense than Bolshevism because it doesn't take from Marx's extensive overhaul of it, and draws from a simpler, truer socialism because of that very fact; that it was more true to Socialism's roots. Only in Communist thinking does state Socialism lead as the first step toward Communism, Socialism in itself doesn't believe this, any Socialist who believes this is a Communist as the belief makes the label not the social condition one is in. Even the U.S.S.R. Communist party called the government 'union of Socialists' because of the state condition, but were themselves understood as Communists. Nazis understood themselves only as Socialist and were completely against the old Aristocracy holding power, however they qualified themselves as Nationalists meaning a government for their people, because the people were their goal as a racial state. This was certainly more Socialist than Fascist as Mussolini's system regarded sovereignty to be a thing for Kingship and the accepted time honoured mores of their culture's heritage of an upper class, not some new idea for socially reconstructing a system of the state regarding human characteristics as something that defined your innate nationality as belonging to what collective social group. Even Mussolini's stance on Jews came later & only incompletely when he was set into an alliance where his fascist government became second in importance to the German 'empire of the people,' and even this coincided happily with the Traditional mores of Italy's Catholic imperalism & romanism. The Nazis were Nationalized Socialists, the Fascists were anti-socialist statists. Nagelfar 09:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * All this may well be true, but the point is that the word "Socialism" doesn't have its original meaning any more, and so we'd have to be careful to indicate that we're talking about Nazsim and old-skool Socialism in this article. Incidentally, if the Nazis were so against the idea of the old Aristocracy holding power, why did they name their flagship battleship the Bismarck? Nazi propaganda, at least, frequently glorified (non-Socialist) German history (otherwise, how could German racial superiority be proven?). It would be really helpful if someone could explain what pre-Marxist Socialism actually consisted of &mdash; there's been a lot of talk about it, but I (and perhaps some others) don't really know what it is. (Of course this is my fault, but I'd like some information on this.) It's quite possible that the Nazis were referring to some pre-Marxist idea of Socialism in their name, but this leaves open two questions: Are there any links between Nazism and what is normally meant by "Socialism"? And were the Nazis really Socialist even in the pre-Marxist sense? I suspect the answer to both questions may be no. Cadr


 * They took the aristocracy and kept them out of power for that privilege, which has nothing to do with besmudging the actions of individuals regardless of their class birth but for what they did for the people outside considerations of their 'class.' To broadly not consider class rather than attack it as Bolshevism did; which for Communism is in a way an exultion of relative societal abjection than class consciouslessness. The Socialism as it was understood in early French & european theory before Communism, was only an idea of unity for the people and state prerogatives to take initiative and distribute resources in favor of it's own people, this should be brought into account in the article as how the Nazis used their name above and beyond 'propaganda' for how the people of Germany actually understood it then. There's nothing difficult or absolute about it's early meaning as it was as all political thought only a word for the common ground of a loose association of ideas. Communism denied the efficiency of the state system to govern and saw Socialism as 'the state' in a condition of diminishing to being governance without a state organization, whereas Socialism within the context of State function for that national guardian apparatus made the Nazis see it as greatening through the welfare of it's people and in turn their support of their own Socialist state working as a cohesive entity (probably ideologically more true in any case). Definitions through history, or a definition popularized currently because a period of history like the Cold War, should be no reason to stop an open source encyclopedia from enhancing the understanding of the term as something distinctly separate from another term (Socialism / Communism) and so in turn rightly qualify a historic term's use (Socialism / Nazism) Nagelfar 06:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, so there needs to be clarification of what kind of Socialism we're talking about in the article. From what I can see, some people have been trying to suggest that Nazism was basically Marxist, and we need to distinguish what you're saying from that POV. Cadr

Theocracy
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)


 * 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)

Nor would I, as I said Hitler wasn't a priest, and wasn't even a full member of these groups, but their influence is clear when you study Nazi culture/ritual. Anyways, I think nazi's were socialist in the sense of christian socialist movements, wherin their domestic policy was strongly influenced by social, cultural, and religious interests. Sam Spade 23:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...Christian Socialist movements were closely tied to the Catholic church. The Nazis didn't get on well with the Catholic church, and generally liked to attack "political Catholicism." Other fascist or quasi-fascist regimes, however, often did come out of Christian Socialistic ideas - like the Dolffuss/Schuschnigg dictatorship in Austria, for instance, or Salazar in Portugal. Of course, I'm not sure such movements should be considered as socialistic, either. john 23:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Hear hear, Nagelfar! Sam Spade 17:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

what does socialism mean?
It's wrong to assume that anything that is not market or capitalist driven is "socialist". Again, that's an American misconception AndyL 17:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * State intervention in society and the market is not the same thing as socialism. It could just as well be Keynesian, or Social Democractic, or any number of other things. A key difference is that in Nazism the interests of the invidual were equated with (or subordinated to) the interests of the state, whereas in Socialism (of any kind, so far as I know) the state is a tool of the popular will, not an autonomous entity. Cadr


 * WOW... that is crazy. If thats any representation of what you folks are talking about when you say socialist, we are wasting our time here. We should all leave this page, go to the socialism page, and not come back until we know what socialism means ;) If it means "the will of the people" then the USA is socialist, and china isn't. :P Sam Spade 17:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What's crazy? China isn't Socialist, you're quite right. The US is also not Socialist, because there is no (direct) democractic control in the economic sphere &mdash; that is the economy is mostly owned and controlled by private capital. This is not an unusual definition of Socialism. You should read the Socialism page. Btw, when I said "whereas in Socialism (of any kind, so far as I know) the state is a tool of the popular will", that was not supposed to be a definition of Socialism, just an element of Socialism. Cadr


 * If you were right, the discussion would be over, the problem solved, and we could conclusively rewrite the page w/o objection. The problem is, your idea of socialism is not accurate, and if it were, most uses of the word "socialist" would be incompatable w your definition, meaning that the word had changed in meaning, and your definition would therefore be outdated, even if it were accurate at any time (which is wasn't ;) Sam Spade 17:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * How is my use of "Socialist" inaccurate? You haven't explained this yet. Cadr

Um... if you are correct, and socialism requires that "the state is a tool of the popular will" than socialism has never occured ;) Just what would be a socialist state, by your definition? Can you name 1 ? Clearkly not any state widely known to be socialist, like Cuba or China... Sam Spade 18:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do not believe there have not been any Socialist states (with the possible exception of one in the Spanish Civil War). Many people believe this; the states you name are usually referred to Communist. Anyway, you're going off on a tangent. All I said was that all definitions of Socialism involve some notion of popular control of the economy, whereas Nazism did not &mdash; the state may have been benevolent sometimes, but at its descretion. You haven't addressed this point. All you did was completely misinterpret what I originally said. I did not say that Socialism was "the will of the people"; I said that one feature of a Socialist state is that the state enacts the will of the people. Cadr


 * I am pointing out that your definition of socialism is useless here. I agree the definition at socialism isn't very good, but its better. Try another source. Sam Spade 18:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  

What is your definition of socialism, Sam?AndyL 18:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * My definition is above, check the cites. It does not include "the state is a tool of the popular will". If it did, I would be a socialist too ;) Sam Spade 18:16, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We already know Sam's definition of socialism. It's statism. At any rate, Sam is again confusing what socialism and nazism are in theory with what they were in practice. Even the Soviet Union claimed that the state was a tool of the popular will, which would ultimately wither away once true communism was achieved. This was not the case for the Nazis. That's not to say that this is all that is involved in socialism, but it remains a necessary condition. john 18:18, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * and you are again substituting the word "socialism" for the word "marxism". They are not synonyms, my friend ;) Sam Spade 18:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, both Marxist and non-Marxist socialists believed that any state which existed should be a tool of the people. Many of the early utopian socialists, and their anarcho-syndicalist successors, believed there should be no state at all. I can't think of any movements widely accepted as "socialist" that glorified the state in the manner that the Nazis did. john 18:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * nobody glorified the state as much as the nazi's, best as I can tell. And they definitely claimed to be doing the will of the people. In case their is any confusion on that, listen to any speech by hitler, or read a random passage from mein kampf. Its what he focused on, really. He was the leader fulfilling the will of his people, protecting them, providing for them, etc... Sam Spade 18:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

collective ownership

 * This is from the first source Same cited: "a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods." Collective ownership = the people deciding how the economy is to be managed, i.e. the government enacts the will of the people, at least in the economic sphere. Cadr


 * Wrong! I wish I had you in my economics class, cadr :) Collective ownership is the opposite of the people deciding what they will do w their stuff. Just ask any libertarian. Sam Spade 18:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. Collective ownership is not about people deciding what they will do with their own stuff. It's about people collectively deciding what they should do with collective property. Cadr

No, its about the state taking your stuff, and giving you propaganda in exchange. If you argue, you go to siberia. ;) Sam Spade 18:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Socialism, like any coherent philosophy, adovcates collective control of collective property and individual control of individual property. The difference between Socialists and Capitalists is that Socialists think that a good deal of property should be collectively owned. In a Socialist state, the state cannot take your property by definition. Cadr

Your ideosyncratic definitions are the problem here. Encyclopedias deal w facts, not w idealistic misinterpretations of reality. Sam Spade 18:41, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What definitions? I don't recall defining anything. I was describing the general tendencies of Socialist philosophy in a perfectly neutral and accurate way. You continue to confuse Socialist theory with Soviet reality. Cadr

No, I continue to "confuse" what you are saying as being unrelated to the definitions I cited above for this term. ;) Sam Spade 18:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Your references support what I was saying. Please explain how they do not. Cadr

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. Sam Spade 18:50, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Look, I understand what your talking about, but socialism isn't the right word for it. Try Libertarian Socialism, anarchism, or something like that. Sam Spade 18:50, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Your references are consistent with what I have been saying. Please explain why you think they are not. Btw, Libertarian Socialism is a kind of Socialism (the clue is in the name ;) Cadr


 * The clue is in the name, hm? Kinda like National Socialism? "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron, in case you didn't know. And we have already gone over how and why you are wrong, how about spending some time reviewing references so that you can begin to become right? Sam Spade 18:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * As I said before: Your references are consistent with what I have been saying. Please explain why you think they are not. As for the "clue is in the name" comment, you got me there, but libertarian socialism is in the philosophical tradition of Socialism, where as Nazism is not. Cadr

God, you guys are fast on the trigger. Let me once again note that Sam seems to be assuming that because the Soviet Union did one thing, that means that what it did is necessarily implied by Marxist-Leninist ideology. That is, of course, not the case. john 19:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, and didn't mean to imply that. Rather I am citing them as having been a socialist state, one of many (along w sweden, and other more pleasent examples, it is true). Sam Spade 19:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, as I mentioned to cadr, we are getting rather far afield Sam Spade 19:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Serving the people

 * This isn't a question of whether X is a Socialist state. This is a question of whether Nazism had any ideological/philosophical roots in Socialism. A good argument that it does not is that, while Nazism holds that the people serve the state, Socialism holds that the state serves the people. Cadr


 * Nazism claimed to serve the people, we've been over this. Sam Spade 19:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the Nazis were for their 'nationals' how they defined them, Fascism of the Italian model believed "people serve the state," as Cadr is saying, Nazis didn't believe this from any of their 'propaganda' or their methods, their whole state system served their people. Otherwise their racial beliefs wouldn't have been a matter to them at all Nagelfar 10:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It claims that people have loyalty to the state, and ought to serve it. The state may do good things for people, but that is incidental. The basic good to people out of National Socialism is that they do their duty and serve the state, thus being in their proper place. john 19:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * all I can say to that is to request you to look into what was actually said by Nazi leaders, rather than what is said about them by detractors. Sam Spade 19:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Nazi leaders never advocated collective ownership of the economy; they advocated Nazi ownership of the economy. The main feature of Nazi ownership of the economy was that a lot of rich industrialists got considerably richer. Cadr


 * And was not everyone given no alternative to joining the Nazi party thus becoming a Nazi? Nagelfar 09:12, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Membership of the actual party was optional, wasn't it? At least it must have been for a while, since it started off just as a normal political party. In any case, ordinary members of the Nazi party had little control over the top levels (Socialism is, in contrast, a bottom-up concept), and you might remember that the Nazis murdered rather a lot of people who objected to their policies. Cadr


 * Actually it was never considered opinional even before taking power, to them you were a Nazi or you weren't in fact German. Once they had power, they were able to strip all other parties of their existence, and keep everyone out of power and out of business who didn't officially join the Nazi party. People who detested the Nazi party had to join it just to keep their life's work & accomplishments, and this meant giving to the Nazi ideal as well economically. Nagelfar 10:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Erm, that is exactly my point. Membership was optional, but unless you joined you couldn't have any influence over the government. This clearly supports my original point that the Nazis controlled the economy/government for the Nazis, not for the people. Cadr


 * Membership wasn't optional, to have any rights you had to join. (of course, 'had to' implies choice which there wasn't; the alternative was being "removed" from society by being 'displaced' or 'disappearing.' Then again, does all-inclusive Socialism give choice outside of it's benign mutual tendencies?) It gave you no influence over the government, it allowed one simply to participate in society as it was run by the National Socialist means of government. Nagelfar 10:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed my point. As I said, the Nazis controlled the economy/government for the Nazis, not for the people. This is not a socialist conception of government, it's a totalitarian one. Cadr

factual acuracy
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)


 * 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)

That is a factual error, and you have no right to veto my dispute of it, particularly because it is your error ;). Sam Spade 21:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)

My problem with it is that it serves to confuse the reader, presenting him w non-factual info. Sam Spade 21:53, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. That's still not a factual accuracy dispute. john 22:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article is a mess
One thing I will say is that the current organization of the article makes absolutely no sense. john 22:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * should we try putting it on VfD again? ;) Sam Spade 22:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section headings. I don't think they really aid in understanding. john 23:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, on second look, I don't think that's a good idea. But currently the section headers are a total mess. john 23:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)

Sam, I've removed the reference to contemporary leftists, which is, I think the only reference to left or right that's not in the context of the Nazis' own time. I do agree, though, that the current article is probably over-using the terms. But the organizational chaos of the article makes me feel like trying to introduce major changes is misguided. At any rate, what's your feeling about the changes I've made so far? I don't really feel as though there's much point to making changes if you're going to change them completely once I'm done, anyway, so I'd like to have some input. john 00:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)

I don't see how marxist-leninism is seen as synonymous with socialism. The article discusses the SPD, which was certainly not leninist, and marxist only in name. Second,, while currently not very well integrated into the rest of the article, is the part that actually discusses the issue at hand. If we take it out, all we're left with is nebulous theoretical arguments, which is what we had before I rewrote the article in the first place. Sam, and I ask you this seriously, have you ever actually read anything about the politics of Weimar Germany? About the rise of the Nazi Party? How can you possibly know whether something is POV or not when you have, as yet, demonstrated no actual knowledge of what historians actually say about the time period under discussion? I am very open to a more balanced article, and I think that Andy has on occasion been a bit too militant in terms of trying to use the article to prove that the Nazis were not socialists, but I think balance is to be achieved by people who know about the subject adding more relevant information, rather than deleting information because you think it's POV. It's too bad User:Jmkleeberg doesn't seem to have stuck around - he seemed to combine a view of this article more amenable to yours with actual knowledge of the subject. john 06:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Andy come lately
Earlier John said:
 * I can't think of any movements widely accepted as "socialist" that glorified the state in the manner that the Nazis did. john 18:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And Sam replied:


 * nobody glorified the state as much as the nazi's, best as I can tell

Which makes me thing Sam didn't actually understand what Johnn said which was that glorification of the state is *not* socialist. Somehow, Sam read the opposite which makes me think he has an idee fixe about socialism being synonymous with statism.


 * As I understand it, Socialism is a sub-category of statism; an egalitarian statism. I agree that the glorificaton of the state is not *Communist*, but whether it is Socialist or not has certainly never been ascertained until the time Marx made Communism as a branch of Socialism, i.e. a kind of collective egalitarian government striving for state minarchy. Communism ceases to be Socialism in Marx's model because the state which was a part of Socialism has died off through the quite separate and natural dialectical processs. (this contradicts the dialectic however in that it has to be active rather than assumed, it exists as what comes out of theory rather than within presumptuous reasoning, but this is another question entirely) Socialism of the Nazi's type assumed a different path for what Socialism would yield for Society. Nagelfar 05:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No, socialism is not a sub-category of statism. There have been many sorts of socialism which are not statist at all.  See Anarcho-syndicalism, which had major influence on socialist and labor movements in France and Spain; or Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon or Charles Fourier or Mikhail Bakunin.  Your suggestion here seems to be that Marxist-Leninism is somehow less statist than undefined other kinds of socialism.  But this is demonstrably not the case - Marxist-Leninism is almost certainly one of the most statist forms of socialism in practice, and in theory it is certainly more statist than the various utopian/anarchic socialist visions which were the main non-marxist currents of socialism.  john 06:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a form of statism, Syndicalism isn't necessarily a form of Socialism as it is vertically eqalitarian rather than horizontally. But in Socialism the state still exists, in theoretical Communist government the state ceases to exist and this is what Communist parties strive, or at least claim to strive, for. Where from Communist theory Socialism leads to this, but isn't this in itself. The State is nothing more than an association of people driving a government, and this is required in Socialism and it is therefore a form of statism (which is not saying it's a form of Statolatry). It certainly isn't devolving regulations that require a state, so it is regulation centered & statist regardless of it's view on the state (alternately it's condition of being Socialism doesn't exclude it's ideology from one or another particular view on the state, including Statolatry). It uses the state's will as the people's voice through a Socialist state interventionism against the minority class structure, this is statism. The concept of the state does not have to be intrinsically anti-egalitarian and Socialism is the proof of this coming form such a POV. Nagelfar 06:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a deeply marxist view of what "Socialism" is. Most pre-Marxian socialists did not believe in the state at all.  They believed that the state should be ignored, essentially.  That was what utopian socialism was all about.  You're excluding anarchistic traditions of socialism because they don't fit in with your preconceived notion that socialism is statistic, but these types of movements pretty clearly conceived of themselves as socialist, and formed part of a socialist tradition that Marx was commenting on. john 06:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Marxism-Leninism theory was about using Socialism as the coercive revolutionary stage of reaching their Communist ideal, and so yes I'd say the concept of Communism to be the motivating force to making Socialism into a militant anti-individual concept, but both Communism and Socialism are separate from being tools of one another, a theory of an individual (Marx) that creates a new categorization (Communism) and the theory for how they apply it are two different things altogether, and so too is one cohesive theory's stand on where another theory fits into it's own theory. Anarcho-Socialism is just that, but it started as an organizational theory for government that had a directing force. So we've broken it down to whether Socialism required a State, and this means needing to define a state, if a group converge to change the Social situation using means & theory, is that not all a state is? (i.e. the enforcement of a system which must be followed to work is essentially law) Nagelfar 06:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * By your definition, it's impossible not to have a state, and therefore every government in the world is "statist". Clearly there's no point continuing the discussion of whether Socialism is statist if this is the definition you are working with. Most people use "statist" to refer to coercive control by a centralised state which is perceived as having separate interests from the general population. Even the Marxist idea of Socialism as an itermediate step does not really match this description &mdash; the state is still serving the interests of the people. Cadr


 * I don't see how my definition makes it 'impossible not to have a state' It is possible not to have a state. Statist as a word has nothing, however, to do with opposing the people's will, this is pejorative reasoning inclined against the concept of a state government and I do see this as a very POV defintion for Statism. I am simply trying to come to an agreement that there is unwillful intervention within the Socialist ideal of taking from those who have & giving equally to benefit those with less, and that this makes it statist not because that it takes unwillingly, but that it takes initiative outside of individual conduct & is composed of a central governing concept whose foundation's concerned with illiberal methods as a secondary to an egalitarian outcome for the people. Nagelfar 10:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Most kinds of Socialism don't involve the redistribution of wealth (except, I suppose in the initial conversion to Socialism) since there isn't really any wealth to redisstribute in a (pure) socialist society. You seem to be talking about Social Democracy more than Socialism. By your argument, any government which taxes the people is statist &mdash; this seems to be a much more POV definition of the word than my own, and it's an unusual definition; I think mine is more normal. Cadr


 * If the initial conversion to Socialism is a redistribution to wealth, then the further steps along cannot be against that can they? It is supposed to be a leverage of mutual have & have nots. Taxes are a method to one or another particular state priority, that defines the state not that it has that measure to be what it is. Having no wealth or things of value is an idea of permanent publicness which is a thing for Communism, I wouldn't say Socialism took this idea to anywhere outside of it's isolated branch of Communism and Communist inspired individuals who refered to themselves as Socialists. They were in fact more 'post-Socialist' than anything. Nagelfar 11:01, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * After the initial redistribution of wealth, most things are collectively owned, so there can't be any (significant) further redistribution. I don't really understand the rest of your comment (where you talk about taxes), sorry. Needless to say, Socialism does not (necessarily) involve taxation, that's more of a Social Democractic thing. Cadr


 * Ah yes, you said "if a group converge to change the Social situation using means & theory, is that not all a state is?". Doesn't that definition make it (almost) impossible not to have a state? Cadr


 * No. What is the 'state' by your considerations? Anarchism is statelessness, where individuals act of their own accord with means or personal theory but not them together with other individuals to form a system that regards others as subject to it. Nagelfar 11:01, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that kind of anarchism could never exist. People would organize themselves into gangs or other kinds of authority structures. Surely any society will have people with some kind of authority; the question is how they obtain and maintain it. Cadr

Further Sam links to the Britannica def'n of socialism which is:
 * (a) system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

Sam, do you understand that the Nazis *do not* meet that definition since propoerty and income distribution were not subject to social control under Nazi Germamy? Some property was under *state* control but state control and social control are not the same thing so according to one of the definitions you cite you are wrong on Nazi GermanyAndyL 04:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * take it to talk:socialism, and I'm not intruiged by your belligerant tone. Sam Spade 05:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it is very irritating when you bring up an idea, someone rebuts it, and you tell them they need to "take it" somewhere else. Andy is, in fact, specifically addressing the question of "nazism and socialism" so I see no reason why this discussion ought to be "taken to" talk:socialism. john 06:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam a) I'm not being belligerent - it's just evident to me that you misread John and that this is likely due to the fact that you're stuck on a socialism=statism formula. b) I'm intrigued by why you're not addressing the criteria in the definition of socialism you yourself cite about "social control". Do you think the Nazi state was one in which property and the distribution of income were subject to social control?AndyL 08:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Income and distribution were subject to social control by mandates and laws which put business in the hands of a political order which served the function of redirecting that into urban renewal and the social effort of the entire ideology which included a form of Socialism qualified as national, socialism of the nationals not the corporations. The nationals made up the corporations so it was direct Socialism of the persona, what the individual accomplished was the public priority of the state for those people, not having put mandates upon how they could be allowed to accomplish it. Hitler had said; "Why should I nationalize the industries? I will nationalize the people." which was the same as having said 'why socialize corporate entities, I will socialize the people who compose them' through the laws put on individuals, but they were ultimately made with the ideology of the individuals who formed the people of Germany as it's priority and so was Socialist by the mean summation of Socialist considerations from pre-Marxian Socialist theory. Nagelfar 09:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"As I understand it, Socialism is a sub-category of statism; " Then you don't understand socialism but have been influenced by a simplistic view propagated in the US for the past 50 or 60 years by both conservatives and some liberals that socialism is synonymous with state intervention and that, conversely, any form of state intervention is ipso facto a form of socialism. This is why in the 1950s you had people screaming that flouridation of water was a communist plot because if the state does something its socialist and if its socialist then it's leading the US down the road to becoming like the Soviet Union and if that happens you'll lose all your freedoms so dammit don't flouridate my water. Oddly, while Americans have a habit of describing things such as public health care as "socialised medicine" I've never heard an American describe NASA as "socialised space exploration". Perhaps that's because everyone agrees space exploration is good (and in any case, private industry can't afford to explore space on their own so there's no claim that NASA is competing with private enterprise) and if it's good it can't be socialist:)


 * No, I see state priorities coercing the people with interventionism as statism. I see Socialism as the priorities of the people forming a state which intervenes with it's conditions to benefit itself somehow. i.e. also statism, but a statism which burns at both ends. The origin of the word 'state' is a conditional sense, so 'the state' as governmental situation poses is the condition of social activity, the state of society is what state the state is in is what the state is. Most Socialist philosophy mentioning 'the state' is speaking of the current non-Socialist states and the blanket condition of world wide governments at the time. Nagelfar 09:21, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * All the Trotskyites I know are anti-statists. They think that when the Communist society is established, the State disappears. I suspect that they see a Communist society not with a monolithic state as per the former USSR, but with a multiplicity of self-ruling institutions, production units etc... David.Monniaux 10:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * And I agree completely as that's exactly how a Communist would see it. Right in the name U.S.S.R. was "Socialist Republic" consisting of a Communist thinking party. Not a Communist government or a Socialist aiming party for that as an ends in itself. Nagelfar 11:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That's very true; the USSR was considered, in theory, a "work in progress". Many Communists think that there has never been any true Communist society in the modern times.
 * The problem is that there is also a wide variety of "Socialist" thinking. Some Socialists are statists. Some reject the State and would prefer self-governing entities such as cooperatives – but they're not Communists since they don't reject private property, just the private property of the means of production. Many "Social-Democrats" are nowadays pretty much not statists, or at least only moderately so (granted, they're not "Socialists" because they have renounced public ownership of the means of production). David.Monniaux 11:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you read Lenin's State and Revolution to get an understanding of how Marxists, at least, see the state. AndyL 08:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Besides, the whole "statist" argument is a bit besides the point: the crucial concept of Nazism is not the State, but the Nation/Folk/Race. David.Monniaux 10:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. The next point is what changes in the article need to be made to the effect that it was Socializing not the abstraction of 'people' considered as the disinherited masses & majority but the 'people' as those who are seen as the same folk & race as themselves. (I couldn't characterize it better than 'National Socialism' which is why I'm suprised at how many consider that terminology to somehow be misleading or to sway those whose wants ran in opposition to what the movement became) Nagelfar 11:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Socialism already has the following meaning in dictionaries: a political theory advocating the absence of private ownership of the means of production. The Nazis didn't advocate that, quite the contrary.
 * I agree that Nazi theory was that there was some kind of community of destiny for the German people, with Germans having a duty to serve their nation. You may of course consider this "Socialism" since it empowers/endows with rights the Society with respect to the individual, but the problem is that the word "Socialism" is already taken to have another meaning.
 * "Nationalism" may be better, don't you think? David.Monniaux 11:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * But how does that separate it from Socialism? There have surely been strongly nationalistic (even racist?) Socialist movements &mdash; it's not all "workers of the world unite". I'm not sure if this is really something that separates Nazism from Socialism. However the lack of workers control of the economy in Nazism surely does. Cadr


 * You're right in saying that there were nationalistic or racist Socialist movements (for instance, you might call Jean-Pierre Chevènement both a Socialist and a Nationalist). The point is, this is not a defining feature of socialism, and the majority of Socialist movements reject nationalism. In comparison, the notion of nation/race is central in the Nazi doctrine exposed in Mein Kampf. David.Monniaux 11:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, fair point. Cadr