Talk:Nazism/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Nazism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

O.K. -- I can see deleting socialism, as the Nazis were socialist in name only, but there was definite homophobia at work. Jews, Gypsies and homosexual men were routinely murdered. Or so the History Channel tells us. Hmm. Any other comments on homophobia? Wowest 09:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Socialists in name only"? Communism doesn't have a copyright on Socialism, the Nazis were just as much Socialists as Stalin was. See, biased POV statements like this is exactly why this article isn't called National Socialism, because some who favour Socialism just cannot handle that Nazism was a form of Socialism. Who deleted Socialism? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:32 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Huh, slow down a litte. Both Nazism and Stalin's version of Socialism can be described as Totalitarianism, but if you want to debate whether Nazism was a form of Socialism, we would have to take an in-depth look on the economic policy of Nazi Germany. Zara1709 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was an anti-Capitalist economy, it was strictly regulated, and it was Socialistic economy. In fact, Sweden, after World War II, applied the exact same welfare system as Nazi Germany had. And no one argues that Sweden wasn't a Socialist country at the time. Did I mention that Sweden also applied eugenics at the time, and forced sterilization? Look, Nazi Germany was a Socialist country, combined with extreme Nationalism. This is very easy to understand if you are objective. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:42 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Nazism is very Homophobic, this is because it goes against their ideal, the nuclear family. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:47 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Well, currently this article doesn't list any specific anti-capitalist measures that the Nazis did IMPLEMENT. There surely was no massive disappropriation of capitalist similar what happened in the Sovjet Union. Unless of course you want to claim the measures against the Jews (including the Jewish capitalists), where anti-capitalist. But then I think it would make no use to discuss this further. Anyway, I have no intention of sorting this question out in the article at the moment. Zara1709 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But it may mean there are no sources for that information. --Neon white 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because this article doesn't list that much about its Socialist economy, or anti-Capitalist economy, it doesn't mean Nazism isn't Socialism. I mean, you don't define Nazism after the current revision of this poor article. And the Soviet Union isn't the only authority on what is and what isn't Socialism. Look, it's not like the Third Reich had a Capitalist economy, I think we can agree on that much, no? — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:43 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand your notion of socialism correctly. You would call both the swedish welfare state and the Soviet Union under Stalin socialist? Zara1709 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You misinterpreted me when I wrote, Communism doesn't have a copyright on Socialism, the Nazis were just as much Socialists as Stalin was. I wrote that because no one accuses Stalin of not being a Socialist. Anyway, Nazi Germany and Sweden both had similar Socialist economy, it wasn't Communism Socialism, but Socialism nonetheless. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:47 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Even thought the german nazi party emerged from a socialist workers movement they were socialist in name only. State ownership of production was never a priority or stated ideal and they did not further such an interest while in power. Companies like porsche and volkswagon were never state owned. All the left wing socialist members who would have such ideals were removed by 1934. It is even less an ideal of modern neo-nazism. Whilst the state did have strict controls over industry and production whether that can be called socialism is very contentious. Almost all definitions of socialism cite the state ownership of property and industry as a key principle. --Neon white 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Neon white said. Please explain the differences between Socialism and Communism, in your view! Because I would describe Stalin's economic policy as socalist and the swedish welfare state as social-democratic, and I am sure this is the common usage of terms. Zara1709 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very true that the USSR (Union of soviet socialist republics), whilst often erroneous called so, was never communist. Modern centre-left parties with social policies are often mislabeled 'socialist' because of the perceived origins of the policies in socialism. --Neon white 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All these points are irelavant anyway, being in the wikipedia category of 'socialism' doesn't mean the subject of the article is defined as socialist, it merely means that an article is linked to socialism which the nazi party were even if only in origin. --Neon white 17:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the German article is titled "Nationalsozialismus", not "Nazismus", but they don't use the category "Socialismus". I would say that the catory "socialism" is not justified because of Nazism is linked to Socialism, but I, for my part, won't bother with the discussion about this. Zara1709 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly would that not justify it? --Neon white 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

State ownership is not mandatory for Socialist states. It was a Socialist economy in Nazi Germany, though of course, not as extreme Socialism as in the USSR. It's not like Nazi Germany was a Capitalist state, it was exactly what the name implies: National Socialist. As for state ownership of just about everything, class struggle, and typical Marxist Socialism, that's Marx' view of Socialism. He did not create Socialism and it's actually inaccurate to use his Socialism as the de facto standard of all things Socialism. You have to remember, Nazism is not a Marxist Socialism; it differs in many ways from Marxism, but it's still Socialism. By the way, it wasn't Socialist in name only, it was Socialism, but a Nationalist version. There were other elements, like Strasserism which advocated a greater emphasis on Nazism's Socialist aspects, but Hitlerism was the more Nationalist version. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:54 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

State ownership of production is the primary principle of socialism. Without that your economy isnt socialist. There were many companies and individuals that did make money out of the war suggesting the ability to raise capital still existed which it wouldnt in a socialist state. The name is derived from the origins of the party and as i pointed out all of the original left wing party members were removed by 1934. Socialism was essentially created by Marx. There may have been other socio-ecomonic movements but the term 'socialism' refers to his ideas. I believe he coined the term to refer to his particular economic system therefore that is it's meaning. --Neon white 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

State ownership of production is the primary principle of socialism. — False. That may be a primary principle in Marxist Socialism, but not Socialism in general. Without that your economy isnt socialist. — Yeah? How so? There are other aspects that define a Socialist economy, like for instance welfare, the rich pay higher taxes, etcetera. State ownership isn't mandatory. And of course, needless to say, anti-Capitalism, which Hitler obviously was. Socialism was essentially created by Marx. — Not true. Socialism has its roots in the French Revolution, which occurred around a century or so before the ideas of Marx began circulating and gaining ground amongst intellectuals. It's true however that Marx developed his own Socialism (Marxism), and contributed a lot to the ideas of Socialism, he didn't really create anything. Also, have in mind that there are lots of different varieties of Socialism outside of the Communism/Nazism spectra, for instance, Arab Socialism (Saddam/Baath party, differs a lot from Marxism), Social Democracy, and so on. Socialism does not imply a Communism type of Socialism. The only people who cannot handle that Nazism is a form of Socialism, are usually Communists and other leftists. By the way, do you seriously believe that an entire nation, the most intellectual state on earth at the time (or one of anyway), did not know the definition of its own ideology? Socialism is just a social (social as in society) form of politics, it doesn't mean, and it is not synonymous with Karl Marx. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:33 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary (definitive in the U.S. by law) says: (http://m-w.com/dictionary/socialism)

Main Entry:      so·cial·ism 
Pronunciation:   \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ 
Function:        noun 
Date:            1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

O.K. -- pick a definition!

Wowest 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we use a better definition:

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

You can't exactly say that Nazi Germany had a liberal economy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:59 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

But you couldn't say either that it had state ownership. You need some intermediate category. Try Corporatism. Zara1709 08:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialism is not synonymous with state ownership, as I've said, there are other aspects. By the way, you should read this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:17 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

but it is, that's socialism, 'collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production'. Socialism as a theory was created by Marx. Of course there were social movements before him but i believe he coined the term to refer to his ideas. The Baath party were stalinist by the way. Your knowledge on the subject seems to be severely lacking. not having a liberal economy does not mean you are immediately socialist, there are many diverse systems of economy. It's simply wrong to define anything that isn't liberal capitalism as socialism. Socialism has a definiton, you cant twist that to fit nazism. There was capitalism, There was private property. State ownership wasn't an ideal. Whether you like it or not history dictates that social reformists were forced out of the nazi party. If you'd actually read any nazi throry you'd know that hitler was quite derisive about the earlier National Socialist Program of the DAP and NSDAP. To quote the page: -

"Henry A. Turner holds that many of the program's vague calls for economic reform and pro-labor legislation, as well as its endorsement of democratic politics, went directly contrary to Hitler's own social Darwinist views and dictatorial ambitions. Furthermore, he noted that the program's calls for land reform and anti-trust legislation threatened the interests of the big business tycoons whose support and funding Hitler was trying to acquire (though his efforts in this direction proved largely unsuccessful). Since he could not abolish the program entirely without causing a stir among the party's voters, Hitler chose to ban all discussion of it instead and hoped it would be largely forgotten."

There is so much evidence to suggest that the nazi party under hitler was not interested in socialist policies. --Neon white 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So, in your expert opinion, what kind of economic-system did Hitler advocate? I would also like to see some of your evidence. It's also quite arguable that Hitler, or the Nazi Party (which was the state) owned the industry simply due to Totalitarianism. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:27 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I just provided evidence from Henry Ashby Turner noted scholar of german history. He maintains that hitler all but banned the national socialist program. My believe is that the economics of nazi germany were not driven by any ideaogy on the nazi's part but, like many countries involved in WW2, they were driven by the war itself and the necessity for planned resources and production during a lengthy war. You probably wont find too much difference between the war time economies of nazi germany and britain at the time despite them having very difficult politics. --Neon white 21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already been told. Nazi Germany, like its brother fascist states, was corporatist in economic policy. The political compass explains pretty well with an analysis based on the most mainstream and reliable sources. That's only a summary; their small piece is based on the work of major encyclopaedias and scholars. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

From your own link: “So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc.” In other words, Self-pwnage! — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:10 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want toengage in the most outrageous display of selective reading I've ever seen, sure. Nazism incorporates some elements of socialism; it is not socialist. The modern welfare state incorporates some elements of socialism. I never said Nazism and socialism had zero relation whatsoever. If you think that justifies categorising Nazism as a strain of socialism, you must also believe that justifies categorising Nazism as a strain of capitalism. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialism is not necessarily state ownership of the means of production. What about anarchists? A key point in the Merriam-Webster definition above that some seem to be conveniently ignoring is "collective" ownership of the means of production. This gets people all turned upside down and promotes the impression that "Socialism = state-controlled economy, therefore state-controlled economy = socialism", which is simply false. Mercantilism was an economic system that featured state control, and I would be very impressed if someone could successfully argue that this was a socialist. This is not to say the Nazis' economic policy didn't feature characteristics of socialism. The ideology informing this policy, however, was not socialist (equality and social justice for workers) but nationalist (implementing these socialist features to benefit the state).FrostyNorth (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should all pause to think that we’re trying to label something that defies labeling. Not every peg will fit into a square hole. The Nazi brand of what they labeled National Socialism might not have fit with the other political systems out there already. Considering everything else that didn’t ‘fit’ this might come to no surprise.

Perhaps someone should spell out what the Nazi brand of National Socialism was, from the ground up, as opposed to making connections with other forms of government. Someone a lot more able than I. Joliver375 (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is an absurd. One cannot call an ideology (ideology is a system of political ideas or doctrines) totalitarian. Totalitarianism is one way of carrying out a certain ideology; and as we don't know whether the case of Germany was/is the first and the last attempt to fulfil nazism, we cannot be sure if nazism always requires totalitarian methods or not. One can say: nazism is an ideology which had so far used totalitarian methods to carry out its politics/policies. 195.50.200.246 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The means to achieve an ideology can still be part of the ideology. Nazism refers to system of government under the nazi party in germany and it's subsequent influence. Totalitarian was an integral part of it. --Neon white 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an ideology can be totalitarian, if it calls for totalitarian rule -- just as an ideology can be democratic, if it calls for democratic rule. Nazi ideology incorportates Fuehrerprinzip, racial supremacy and domination, and a fascist conception of the state. These require totalitarianism. --FOo 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you studied the elementary theory of what political doctrines and ideologies are and how they function? 195.50.200.246 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the page continues to irritate me. I have read The Origins of Totalitarianism twice, and of course I would speak of totalitarian ideology when it comes to Nazism and Stalin's version of Socialism. Zara1709 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"IDEOLOGY is a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture and/or a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture, and/or the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program." - Assertions, theories and aims, NOT MEANS. If you call an ideology either totalitarian or democratic, then (neo-)liberalism is certainly democratic, isn't it? Yes, it is democratic, when it is carried out in today's Denmark or Germany, but what about Augusto Pinochet and Chile? An ideology can call for BOTH totalitarian AND democratic rule. 195.50.200.246 08:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all the elementary reviews of ideologies emphasize that: IDEOLOGY = IDEAS, THOUGHTS, CONCEPTS, NOTIONS, CONCEPTIONS. Louis Althusser, in his work "Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatuses", writes the following:

Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.

(Louis Althusser, LENIN AND PHILOSOPHY AND OTHER ESSAYS, Monthly Review Press New York and London, p. 162)

This means that the ideology is something that represents something imaginary (ideas, thoughts, conceptions are imaginary). And so we come to admit that the ideology has no direct connection with reality, and we must regard ideologies as IDEAS or THOUGHTS -- unlike the first sentence of this article which tries to connect the IMAGINARY THOUGHTS with the German reality. As a comparison, the beginning of the article concerning communism:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

It would also be possible to start the article of communism like that: "Communism refers primarily to the totalitarian ideology that ruled in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and so forth..." Rannit 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that would not be possible. Surely Communism (also) refers to The Communist Manifesto, and not primarily to the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao, and Cuba is actually not that totalitarian... We should not have had this article semi-protected. Now people spam the discussion page with weird statements. I don't know how somone can quote Althusser and at the same time not remember that the word 'Communism' goes back at least to the Communist Manifesto (unlike the word Nazism, which has been coined for a specific 20th century movement.) Zara1709 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had the ability to think and analyse, you would understand that Rannit quoted Althusser in the context of the theory of ideologies, not in connection with communism. 195.50.200.246 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Zara, have you ever studied the history of the twentieth century from other sources except Wikipedia too? Do you think the Soviet Union was totalitarian only under the regime of Stalin?? Rannit 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, with all my abilty to think I don't get why someone who has read Althusser would like apply the term Communism primarily to Communist states, regardless in which context he quoted him. Seriously, I fail to understand most of what has been recently written on this discussion page, and I don't want to analyze it further. In the corrosponding German article they still have an edit war about whether Nazism was anti-democratic or anti-liberal. I will do my best to stay away from something similar here, and thus will take the article of my watchlist now! Don't expect any replies.

Concerning the Soviet Union, read Hannah Arendt. Zara1709 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is typical that when people haven't got sufficient arguments, they just say : "I don't want any criticism more!... I don't want to discuss this subject any more!" If you don't understand most of what has been written here, maybe you are incompetent in the corresponding matter? Now, perhaps the definition of nazism should be something like that of fascism:

Fascism is an political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity through oppression and coercion, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

Rannit 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism is generally seen as totalitarian. For example, see article in Britannica about it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, arguments like "it is generally seen as..." are not convincing. And Britannica isn't concentrated on ideological topics and there are the so-called "popular" definitions, not those composed of scientists. We must make a difference between nazism AS AN IDEOLOGY and nazism AS A CERTAIN POLITICAL SYSTEM IN GERMAN HISTORY. If the article aims at describing the political system, then I'll agree; but if the goal is to introduce the national socialist ideology, then it is a gross mistake to call it totalitarian. 195.50.200.246 08:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference, the ideology of nazism is the ideology of the nazis, That's kinda why it's called that. --Neon white 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, academic consensus, as you've been shown, is clearly that Nazism is inherently totalitarian — e.g., that totalitarianism, or at least the desire for it, is a part of the ideology. No such thing can be said about communism. Marxism-Leninism, perhaps, but certainly not communism. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are typical dilettantes... that's why people attend universities, and so did I, to study thoroughly the politics and history. That statement about communism does not deserve the labour of criticising, because it is, to put it mildly, idiotic. 195.50.200.246 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, to summarise, you have not responded to either offering. People often shelter under ad hominem when they cannot counter an argument. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should first name some arguments to your statement: "Well, academic consensus, as you've been shown, is clearly that Nazism is inherently totalitarian — e.g., that totalitarianism, or at least the desire for it, is a part of the ideology. No such thing can be said about communism. Marxism-Leninism, perhaps, but certainly not communism." When there are no arguments, I cannot counter any argument. 195.50.200.246 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That didn't make too much sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. You have yet to come up with anything convincing that says totalitarianism can't possibly, for some absurd reason, be part of nazi idealogy. You're essentially arguing that hitler didnt plan to be a dictator, that he didn't believe in centralized government or complete control. --Neon white 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the first sentence of this article describe its subject pejoratively, while at the same time the article concerning communism starts as follows:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.

Perhaps THIS ARTICLE should also be NEUTRAL and describe the content and ideas of nazism? 195.50.200.246 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about the lead that isn't neutral. --Neon white 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The German article beginns as follows:

Der Nationalsozialismus ist eine radikal antisemitische, antiliberale, antimarxistische und antidemokratische Weltanschauung und politische Bewegung, die in Deutschland nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg entstand.

To translate the sentence: National socialism is a radically anti-semitist, anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-democratic ideology and political movement that originated in Germany after the First World War. Perhaps such a beginning would be more adequate? Rannit 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is better this way you proposed. But the whole introduction is coherent and we cannot just change the first sentence without re-writing the rest of it. So if others also agree with such a beginning you should try to re-formulate the entire introduction. 195.50.200.246 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)