Talk:Nazism and socialism/Archive 2

factual relativism

I agree, but outside of controlling POV I'm not real sure about how to resolve the prob here, I think its specifically a socialism problem, and generally a systematic wiki-POV bias in favor of ... factual relativism. Sam Spade 07:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's certainly much confusion. Hmm, what's factual relativism (red link)? Kim Bruning 11:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Only 16 hits on google for "factual relativism". Hmm, the fact that people might get accused of factual relativism does seem to be predicted by one of the references for lie-to-children. It might be interesting to dig a bit further at some point. Kim Bruning 11:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the link, at least for the moment. Sam Spade 01:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

removed from article

I've removed the following from the article:

---

==Some opinions regarding what are seen as false perceptions of differences between Nazi's and Socialists==

* Nazis persecuted scapegoat groups such as Jews, Gypsies, and foreigners in much the same way that Soviet leaders persecuted Jews, Cossacks, kulaks, and foreigners. Both practiced racism, both practiced classism, and both imprisoned and executed people for their identity, not their actions.

* The fighting between Nazis and Communists was really a fight between factions claiming to be the true religion or ideology while accusing the other of heresy, much as Communists "liquidated" opposition Socialists in Russia, Spain, and other countries. Despite being supposedly mortal enemies with opposing philosophies, Hitler and Stalin remained in a state of peace with one another for some time with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and they returned fugitives caught escaping from the other's regime.

* The major difference between economic programs in the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the state owned property in the USSR, while the state was intimately involved with the property and business owners in Germany. Under both systems, prices were centrally fixed, unions were outlawed, and everyone was expected to work for the state, which determined the final disposition of raw materials, final goods, and laborers.

Please be aware that some feel that the Soviet Union was not socialist, despite the general concensus to the contrary, and thus would find the above section to be unhelpful.

This is just utter nonsense, and oughtn't to be anywhere. john 06:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree completely, but rather than reverting, lets focus on how this portion might be better worded, NPOVed, or otherwise improved. Sam Spade 06:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The whole damned article needs a complete rewrite, or else it should be deleted. What is here now is, essentially, one list of lame POV statements, followed by a list of decent refutations of the arguments in the first section, followed by some general programmatic POV remarks. john 06:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

rewrite

Impartiality? I'm not sure what you mean. I certainly have my own opinion of the article, but my opinions aren't based on some sort of pre-existing prejudice in favor of one side. The article as it was was horrible, mostly because it made no attempt to actually be an article, but was merely a collection of lists. I've rewritten the article - What is thought of it? It's probably somewhat POV, at the moment, but this can be worked on. john 07:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My rewrite was extreme POV? I actually discussed the history of comparisons between Nazism and socialism. I agree that the last paragraph could use work, but NPOV does not mean simply listing one side's arguments and then listing the other side's. The current article is crap. My article was probably somewhat POV, but at least it's an article. Feel free to make changes, but the only way this article can ever get to a decently acceptable place is to start anew. john 07:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You might be right, and maybe the article could use a rewrite, but what you put clearly expressed a 'nazi's are not socialists' POV. Sam Spade 07:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have an idea, how about taking all the info on their now and using it to make a NPOV rewrite that you think someone who thinks nazi's are socialists could also agree to. Keep the info and leave out the POV and everybodies happy, I'd guess. Sam Spade 07:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's hard for one person to write an article not from a POV, especially on a controversial issue on which they have a POV. I would be happy for those that view Nazism as a form of Socialism to try to explain more fully the position, which I must admit I don't fully understand (beyond, of course, the many quasi-socialist positions to be found in the Nazi platform, which I specifically mentioned twice in the article). As to your suggestion, the whole problem with this article is that much of the "info" is irrelevant or dubious. And that the article is not so much written from a POV, as written from several different, mutually contradictory POVs, occasionally even in the same paragraph. At any rate, I will admit that my last paragraph was not particularly just to modern arguments that Nazism was a socialistic system, and that the use of the term "real Socialist movement" to describe the SPD and KPD was POV. So I would invite you to make changes. But the current article is basically poison, and I'd oppose any effort to incorporate it into a new article. john 07:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poison? That seems a bit extreme. The article as it stands now is basically a list of talking points and counter arguments. Take a look at the article history as you have advised others to do, and I think you'll find that no matter how many rewrites there have been, it always ends up as a list of talking points and counter points. As fas as understanding my position, we would have to define Socialism in a satisfactory manner for starters. Your definition likely has little to do w mine, I use this one, and would simplify to say that it is a society other than laisse fair capitalism. Thats huge and general, which is the only way you can include soc-dems and commies in the same word. The terms used to discuss politics are terrible to begin with, and thats really the source of all this trouble, but we have to do what we can w what we have, original research not being allowed. I like alternate political spectrums like the Nolan chart myself. Sam Spade 07:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The definition of socialism ought to be in an article on socialism, not here. At any rate, would feudalism, or mercantilism, be "socialism"? Because neither of these was laissez faire capitalism...Furthermore, is the mixed economy of the U.S. today "laissez faire capitalism"? I think this definition ultimately leads to just about every economic system ever applied anywhere as being "socialism" This definition is utterly unacceptable, I think, from any reasonable standpoint. But this is an argument for the socialism page, which is linked to in this article. At any rate, I've redone my changed article, to try to make it somewhat less POV. I'd welcome any further changes you'd like to make so that it can adequately express your viewpoints. john 07:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good job pushing this article toward the non-fiction genre, John. If you get back to making additional changes, perhaps comparisons with corporatism in Mussolini's Italy will make things clearer. This will highlight the aspects that starkly separate "corporatism" from "collectivism," especially the emphasis on rigid hierarchy and racial purification for the Nazis.

After watching those two users dig up a handful of out-of-context quotes for their polemic, IMHO we ought to emphasize the dangers of making such sweeping generalizations, as if Fascism and Nazism were complete or consistent theories. Perhaps we could note that inconsistencies and contradictions were fundamental characteristics of Fascism and Nazism. We can explain that this was a source of strength that enabled them to attract support from many groups. Their rabid denouncements of almost everything about existing society and anticommunism, of course, won over support as diverse as dissident and alienated elements in society and many financeers.

The current version does a good job highlighting the strong support among classes caught between big business and big labor. But perhaps we can elaborate on the relationships of Nazism and Fascism to the national bourgeoisie of these countries.

Anyway, great job. You cleaned up an awful mess very nicely. 172 16:53, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John has done Wikipedia a good turn with his NPOV re-write of the article. That's what happens when you get a thoughtful and articulate student of history involved with a topic that is, at its root, historical. There are people that will buck John's re-write for politically motivated reasons. More's the shame. But, with articles like John's, the credibillity of Wikipedia could be advanced. Sunray 17:09, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

The article is much cleaner now. Kim Bruning 17:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade's started f***ing up the article. Will someone protect this page again? 172 17:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for giving people a generous helping of rope before dealing with them. All the better for hanging themselves with. But Sam Spade might yet improve the article. One way to find out. Patience! Kim Bruning 18:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Sunray asked me to revert and "protect" this article. Is that what I have to do, to keep this from turning into a reversion war? I would hate to do this because:

• I'd like to be able to edit the article, myself -- and it's not considered good sport for an admin to edit an article he has "protected": it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
• I'd like to think that passionate advocates like Jack Lynch, er I mean Sam Spade, or whoever you really were in your previous incarnation, can grasp our NPOV policy well enough to set a shining example for John...
• It's Friday. I don't like to flex my admin muscles on Fridays. --Uncle Ed 19:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade was trying to edit in references to Nolan_chart at one point I think, (he should have referenced!) but 172 shot him down. Is this some kind of longer running political war that I accidentally stumbled into? Kim Bruning 23:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I think much of the problem with your edits comes from the fact that you're removing contextualizing detail, making the article more general and vague. I think specificity is the enemy of POV. Saying that "Socialists believe Nazism is reactionary" and saying that "Socialists in Germany in the 1920s argued that Nazism was reactionary" are quite different. Trying to erase the distinction between totalitarianism theory and the argument that Nazism was a form of socialism is also bad. Why don't you focus on expanding further on arguments for similarities between Nazism and socialism. (Actual scholarly sources would be helpful here - what does Hayek say on the subject, for instance?) john 23:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, what do you mean by:

I'd like to think that passionate advocates like Jack Lynch, er I mean Sam Spade, or whoever you really were in your previous incarnation, can grasp our NPOV policy well enough to set a shining example for John...

? (Particularly, why am I mentioned here?) john 07:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

sorry to break it to you John, but your rewrite is intensely POV. I was trying to make things more accurate, not less precise in my edits. On the other hand you come across as a lot less POV than your supporters ;) Sam Spade 08:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked that you think my rewrite was POV. Please explain how it is NPOV to change "the established Socialist movement in Germany thought" to "Socialists think" and "non-Nazi center and right wing parties in Germany suspected" to "Many Germans thought"? Together, this gives the (entirely incorrect) impression that Hitler's party was thought by contemporaries to by left wing, and that it is only present day socialists who think it was right wing. Again, if you want to expand upon post-1945 arguments that the Nazis were a Socialist movement, go ahead. I think the article is rather weak in that department at the moment. I'm not going to say I'll let you have free reign there, but clearly there's a need to write more about that, and hopefully a collaborative effort could lead to a decent discussion of such issues. But I know the history of Weimar Germany, and I will fight tooth and nail any attempts to make a hash of that part of the article from somebody who either knows very little, or cares very little, about it. john 08:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll just tell it like it is. I'm not shocked at all. He thinks that your rewrite is POV because he obviously doesn't know the history of Weimar Germany. He has been fighting fight tooth and nail any attempts to make a hash of that part of the article from somebody who either knows a great deal, or cares a great deal, about it. He's just trying to turn it into a loopy John Birch Society-style rant and polemic.

BTW, I'd like to tell everyone that this is merely my honest opinion. If this is hurting anyone's feelings, I'm sorry. It's nothing personal - I'm just being honest. 172 12:12, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that 172 hits it on the nail. Not only is his assessment bang on, but he backed it up with a timely revert. Anyone who would drastically alter John's rewrite is obviously either ignorant or a troll. I had given up on this article, but with the John's work and 172's support my hopes for Wikipedia are re-kindled. Thanks to you both. Sunray 14:56, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

Just to note that I was "shocked, shocked" at Mr. Spade's view of my article in the same way that Capt. Renault was shocked that there was gambling at Rick's. I'd always thought that repeating the word "shocked" made that clear. Ah well. 172, while I don't necessarily disagree with you, I do still hope that constructive engagement with Sam Spade would be a better way to proceed than gratuitously insulting him, which doesn't really accomplish much beyond getting everyone mad. john 18:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

wikiquette

Gratuitous insults and other foolishness don't make me particularly mad, they just suggest to me that the talk page is not going to be a useful place to discuss anything important until the flamers have moved on. I'll continue to edit the article, and will corrispond via personal talk pages, but clearly reasonable, logical discourse is not on the menu here today ;) Sam Spade 18:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andy,

1. the list is a bad idea. The article should not be competing lists of debating points
2. More than just "conservatives" say that German centre and right folks thought the Nazis might be socialists. Those parties themselves said so in their election literature.
3. I'd like to keep as much of the "the very idea is a right wing propaganda ploy" and "well, Soviet communism wasn't socialism, anyway" out of the article as possible, just because it provides little informative value and irritates people. john 18:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John,

Much of what you added to the article is correct, but you need to cooperate with Sam Spade. If I were forced to revert and protect at this point, I'd be inclined to pick one of SS's versions. You added some really good detail, but you seem to be confusing factuality and context with NPOV.

The purpose of this article whould be to explain why certain people think Nazism was socialist; and ALSO to explain why certain other people think it wasn't. Don't try to settle the matter for the reader, but provide him with enough information to make up his own mind. --Uncle Ed 19:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to me that John is confused at all. Factuality and context result in NPOV.

• • Not sure what you mean here. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• NPOV doesn't mean "making up hypothetical arguments and attributing them to hypothetical people". If "certain people" think Nazism was socialist, we should identify those people and summarize their views. If "certain other people" "think it wasn't" whe should identify those people and summarize their views. They should actually be identified rather than have their existence postulated. "Some scholars" is not an identification. "Critics" is not an identification. "Some critics and leftists" is not an identification. "Others" is not an identification. Generalizations lead to pontification; specificity leads to an improved article. - Nunh-huh 19:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • Totally agree with this part. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, My point is that there is a debate on whether or not nazism is a form of socialism and the only way to write an article on the matter is to outline both sides of the debate. Taking out the competing debating points, in fact, makes the article NPOV by presenting the topic as if there is one right answer.

If you meant "taking out...competing points makes the article biased, then I agree. (Was that a typo? NPOV is the OPPOSITE of biased, not a synonym. -- Pedantically, Uncle Ed 13:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, it's just ahistorical to say that conservatives opposed Nazism. Some did, but most didn't, most notably von Papen. The Nazis didn't win an electoral majority. The only way they were able to take power was with support from the centre and right. AndyL 19:22, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

Well nunh, in that case a statement like " many on the traditional center and right in the German politics of the Weimar Republic did genuinely fear that the Nazis were, in fact, socialists" needs to be supported and reconciled with the fact that the centre and the right supported the Nazis in the Reichstag while the Communists and the Social Democrats did not. Rather than make a statement that the right feared the Nazis were socialists better to either say that some say that (ie identifying the argument as an opinion rather than a fact) or remove it altogether. AndyL20:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

---

I reverted to John Kenney's version. The last round of sweeping changes by Sam Spade make a grotesque mockery of NPOV policies. Someone ought to protect the page - at least until User:John Kenney returns. 172 22:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andy, G-Man, the relationship of the normal parties of the center-right and right to Nazism is very complicated. Indeed, you are correct that they formed a coalition with the Nazis in 1933. And indeed, for years before that, the DNVP had coddled the Nazis, including them in right-wing anti-government maneuvers like the anti-Young Plan campaign and the Harzburg Front. However, they were also worried by the seemingly left-wing elements of the Nazi program, and hoped to create a coalition in which the Nazis (whose "national enthusiasm" and ability to get the masses to vote for them was admired by the right) could hold a junior position and be "tamed" by more "responsible" conservative elements. In actual electoral campaigns, when they were competing with the Nazis for voted, both Conservatives (DNVP) and Liberals (DVP, DDP would accuse the Nazis of actually being socialists to try to get middle class voters to avoid them. The DNVP and the Catholic Centre also accused the Nazis of being anti-Christian. So I wasn't trying to say that conservatives opposed Nazism, because, as you point out, that simply isn't true. So I'll try to make that part a bit clearer. But don't put in nonsense like "Some conservatives say that the center and right wing parties thought that." They did think that, but more context as to their view of Nazism is probably appropriate. And I certainly wasn't talking about what "the man on the street" thought about Nazism. I was discussing the officially proclaimed positions of the major German political parties, which is easily verifiable. For voting dynamics in late Weimar Germany, see Thomas Childers' The Nazi Voter.

Second, the debating points are bullshit. I fully agree that the argument that Nazism was a form of socialism needs to be more fully elaborated upon in the article. But this should be done by explaining the views of reputable (or, at least, well-known) people who have said this, rather than just saying "here are some arguments that the Nazis were socialists." This striked me as being perilously close to original research. Once again, NPOV does not mean "Here is a POV presentation of one side's arguments, followed by a POV presentation of the other side's."

Finally, it's certainly true that more people than just socialists in Weimar Germany said that the Nazis weren't socialists. But the paragraph under discussion was talking about contemporary perceptions of the Nazis, not what people have thought since 1945, which was discussed at the end of the article. And let's not protect this article if we can avoid it. john 22:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excellent response, John Thank goodness you're around and have the patience to respond as often as you do. 172 22:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By your argument, John, it would have made as much sense for von Papen and the Conservatives to nominate a social democratic government. They didn't. They supported the Nazis to keep the left out of power and in that fact is an implicit recognition that the Nazis were not socialists because if they were it wouldn't make any sense to use them to keep socialists out of power. AndyL

Also, Nazi opposition to Bolshevism and the right's support of them for that is not a minor pointAndyL 22:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Conservatives certainly thought the Nazis were better than the SPD. The SPD were traitors who had betrayed Germany in 1918 and were itching to do it again. The Nazis, whatever their questionable views on economic policy, were good Germans, and showed a healthy national enthusiasm. Properly harnessed, the energy of Nazism would be useful in providing popular support for a national government of the right. And the more responsible elements dominating the government would make sure that all of those crazy ideas the Nazis had would never come into practice. (BTW, Schleicher was actually negotiating with both Strasser and the Social Democratic labour unions for some kind of all-labour government in early 1933...)

As to the changes I've just made, I tried to clarify the issue of what I said about center and right parties in Germany. I also took out most of the stuff about the right bringing Hitler to power - it's not relevant to the topic of Nazism and socialism. I also tried to tone down some of the POV - Andy, the version you put up is actually much more opposed to the idea that Nazism was a form of socialism than mine was, and most of the people who've been making this page difficult thought that my version was widely POV against the idea. I think we need to keep it bland, at least until someone actually writes more substantively about arguments in favor of the idea, something which I'm not really qualified to do (you'd think that Sam Spade, or whoever, would have Hayek, or whoever, at his fingertips for this purpose, but apparently not). john 22:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the role of von Papen, his centre party and the conservatives vis a vis Hitler becoming Chancellor and the enabling act are central to the argument that the Nazis were not socialists and that the right knew that and must be in the article. Also, the Nazis own views on Marxism (Judeo-Bolshevism) are quite germane. AndyL 22:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Let me add that I think Henry Ashby Turner established fairly conclusively that the German capitalists were not particularly instrumental in funding the Nazis. Basically, up to 1932, they had Fritz Thyssen funding them, and that's it. After the Nazis' success in the various 1932 elections, big business started to give more money to the Nazis, but more along the lines of "if they're going to come to power, we want to have some leverage" than any particular enthusiasm for Nazism. Most of the Nazis' money came from member dues before that. At any rate, I'm not trying to dispute that the conservatives brought Hitler to power. And you're right that they viewed the Nazis' antibolshevism (and "national enthusiasm" and so on and so forth) as a positive. There was no doubt that Nazism was basically on the right. But the conservatives genuinely were worried about some of the weird economic planks of the Nazi program, which is why they were so eager to "tame" the Nazis. (Well, that and Hitler's overweening arrogance). By the way, Papen was absolutely not "leader of the Centre Party". Heinrich Brüning and Ludwig Kaas (probably no article on him) were the leaders of the Centre Party. When Hindenburg fired Brüning in June 1932, he appointed Papen, a very, very conservative member of the Centre to be Chancellor. That betrayal caused the Party to kick Papen out. He was not associated with any party when he put Hitler in power, although he was closely aligned with the DNVP. john 22:34, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

please provide proof of this claim

most (but certainly not all) members of the working class continued to vote for the SPD or the KPD even as late as the March 1933 elections held shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

Sam Spade 23:36, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Saying that conservatives and centrists feared that the Nazis were socialists but *not* discussing their role in bringing Hitler to power creates a false impression that the Nazis were opposed by Conservatives when they were not. Discussing von Papen and the Enabling Act is essential for NPOVAndyL23:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam: The SPD+KPD vote totals remain fairly constant throughout elections in the 1928-1933 period. See [1]. Of course, it's actually a bit more complicated than that sentence, but I think that it's a fairly accurate representation of what happened. The total dipped somewhat in March of 1933, but this was largely due, it is thought, to intimidation of the Communists by the new Nazi government.

Andy: this article is about the idea that the the Nazis were socialists. The only purpose of the discussion of centre and right wing parties is to discuss that these parties made the accusation, at the time, that the Nazis were actually socialists. The fact that they also helped Hitler into power does not particularly say anything one way or another about whether the Nazis were Socialists. john 23:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andy, I've again taken out the two paragraphs, but added a brief discussion which shows more fully the ambivalence of the right wing position about the Nazis. john 23:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry John but discussing "ambivalence" is not enough. It's essential to discuss the actual support the right gave to the Nazis. It's a central argument as to why the Nazis were not socialist and that the right knew this. You say you took out the section to prevent "edit wars" yet you seem to be the only one who objects to it. AndyL 23:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a central point and if you keep removing it I'm going to ask for protection. At least wait and see if others see it's an important point rather than removing it preemptively AndyL 00:00, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm the only one who objects to it? Just wait until Sam Spade gets his hands on it, and you'll be wishing it was removed (he's already started on it) At any rate, my version specifically said that the right wing elements helped get him into power. That should stand on its own without the narrator going on about how this shows the Nazis weren't socialists - among other things, it doesn't particularly show that. john 00:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And what about von Papen and the Enabling Act? If that info isn't in then everything about conservative anxiety about the Nazis should go.AndyL00:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put in that the Nazis came to power due to an alliance with conservatives, and said that the conservatives viewed the Nazis positively in many ways. I also changed around the discussion about conservative anxiety, merely noting that this accusation was made by conservatives, rather than that they actually feared it. Does that improve things? john 00:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to accept that for now, although I'm still not sure why we need so much detail on this. john 00:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again I must agree with Andy, that they were supported into power by the conservatives of the day is a central point of the discussion of whether or not the Nazis were socialists. I fail to see what you are objecting to.

That should stand on its own without the narrator going on about how this shows the Nazis weren't socialists

I agree that is why I qualified it by saying that opponents of the "nazis are socialists" idea raise this fact as evidence that they were not G-Man 00:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't like going to that level of abstraction. Cite the fact, let people draw their own conclusions. What I am objecting to is a) the fact that, as I left the article before the last changes by Andy, I think it demonstrated pretty fully that the right wing helped the Nazis into power. Since this is, at best, a secondary point in relation to the article in general, I don't see why we need to go into the level of detail of talking about the Enabling Act and Franz von Papen. I am perfectly happy to have something saying that conservatives helped Hitler into power, and you guys are correct to say that my original formulation gave far too much credit to the German right. My objection lies only to the level of detail necessary for this specific article, and to the fact that I want to have the strongest, most indisputable presentation of the case against Nazism as socialism so that there won't be much that the "the Nazis were socialists" crowd can protest against with any validity. john 00:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I want to have the strongest, most indisputable presentation of the case

This is not what we are ment to be doing here. This is not about deciding if they were or were not socialist. It is about providing info to the reader that will leave them more informed, rather than swayed one way or the other. This is not ment to be a persuasive essay ;) Sam Spade 03:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

And I think making the point re the Enabling Act and von Papen is necessary to make the "strongest, most indisputable presentation". The actions taken by conservatives are indisputable and say much more than suggesting that someone thought this and someone else said that. Fact is, when push came to shove, socialists and communists consistently opposed the Nazis while conservatives and some centrists helped them take power as a way of keeping socialists and communists out of power. It's important to say that regardless of whether you add "this is an argument for why the Nazis were not, in reality, socialist" AndyL 04:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

A suggestion

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

Cite your sources and I'll call off my weasels. Sam Spade 00:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sources for what? I gave a source for the "Working classes tended to continue to vote for their traditional parties" thing. That's the only thing you've asked about. Anyway, I was mostly directing at Andy, at the moment. At any rate, if you're disputing the accuracy of a comment, you should provide some explanation as to why it's wrong (as I have done repeatedly for things I disagree with), rather than just demanding that I give a source. john 01:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

A source for what? What do you want a source for? What do you object to in the current article? If you don't object to anything, why are you arguing? If you do, bring it out now, instead of making coy remarks. And, once again, if you think something is wrong, you should explain why, instead of just removing it because it's not footnoted (which nothing in Wikipedia is). john 01:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

$0.02

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

Danny, I agree with your general sentiments. But the Freikorps were a group of independent rightist organizations, although they were used by the Social Democratic (and later Weimar Coalition) government to suppress extreme left violence. The SPD's militia was the Reichsbanner. I'd further note that this article is not so much on Nazism per se, as on the history of the idea that the Nazis were socialists. Or, at least, that's how I conceived it - it seems to be being changed further from that as time goes by. john 02:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Certainly the origins of the Nazis in the far-right nationalist movements that proliferated in Germany after the war is a worthile topic but should be documented (Kershaw is a good source on this) as well as the lack of any linkes between the Nazis and the socialist movements up to WWI. The fact that the Nazis were never part of the socialist movement and did not come out of it is relevent, particularly given the reference in the article of Mussoli's prior career as a socialist ie if its relevent to refer to Mussolini it's relevent to refer to the fact that the Nazis origins were in the right, not in the socialist movement. AndyL 02:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. It is certainly appropriate to add material on Nazism's origins on the right. Unlike the leaders of fascist movements in, say, Italy (Mussolini), France (Déat, Doriot), and Britain (Mosley), who all had origins on the left, none of the major Nazi leaders that I can think of had any significant relationship with the left in their pasts. john 02:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, my apologies. You're right, of course, about the Reichsbanner, though the SD used the Freikorps to do their "dirty work." Writing from memory, I conflated the two. The way I read the article--and I have been trying to avoid it--it seemed as if it was originally intended to "prove" that Nazism originated in socialism/was a variant of socialism, not provide a history of that idea (with all its Cold War implications). I have Kershaw and Lewin's (eds.) Nazism and Stalinism at work, and that seems to be a good starting point. Danny 03:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

disputes still needed?

Is the factual accuracy of the article still an issue? Can we remove the disclaimer? What about the one on neutrality? AndyL 03:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the article now stands, I have no dispute Sam Spade 04:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

from article

Industries and trusts were not nationalised, indeed, military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period while independent trade unions were outlawed as were strikes. The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews and these were not retained by the state but sold to private capitalists.

I'd like to see some verification and NPOV w this Sam Spade 03:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What verification do you want? See Schafer, NSDAP: Entwicklung und Struktur der Staatspartei des dritten Reiches, where he discusses the composition of the Nazi Party. Also Robert Ley's quote that "The Deutsches Arbeits-Front [[the union established by the Nazis to replace existing independent labor unions] is not an economic organization but a political one" (in Die Deutsches Arbeits-Front: Wesen--Ziel--Weg, 1943, p. 8). What about war crimes trials against industrialists like Krupp? What about reading some of the literature on the topic? Danny 04:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Krupp remained private as did Ufa (the film giant). Sam Spade, rather than asking us to prove a negative can you please tell us which industries and trusts were nationalised? AndyL 04:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What do you dispute? Industries and trusts were not nationalized. Military production (I don't know much about film production) did remain in the hands of private industries. Many private companies did flourish during the Nazi period. Independent trade unions and strikes were outlawed. Jewish property was expropriated, mostly in 1938, and sold off. This is all pretty standard stuff, and ought to be findable in any decent history of Nazi Germany. Hell, even Bill Shirer's book (it's called The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) probably has that stuff, if you want a specific source. Kershaw's bio of Hitler probably contains this material as well. Or Gordon Craig's Germany 1866-1945. Now, as to NPOV, this material seems relevant, as all of these things are rather contrary to the general idea of socialism. (Of course, the Soviet Union also banned independent trade unions, but that speaks more to the idea that the Soviets weren't really Socialist than to the idea that the Nazis were). The proper way to NPOV it would be (if possible) to add material pointing out ways in which the Nazis were like socialists. john 04:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[2] [3] Hitler?s Consolidates Power

full employment with public works jobs and state control of all business decisions Directs Ferdinand Porsche to build affordable peoples car. Sam Spade 04:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade should try signing out books from the library and reading them rather than citing undergraduate essays as evidenceAndyL 04:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Although I did find the following on "fascist ecnomics" from one of the works Sam Spade cites interesting:

"Does not nationalize companies - makes loans"

Maybe Sam should read what he cites? :) AndyL 04:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that also, don't be rude. Sam Spade 04:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is that near the line: "Anti-Labor Unions"? Danny 04:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey Sam I can't help it if the evidence you cite proves that you're wrong :) Still waiting for proof that the Nazis nationalised anything. AndyL 04:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just NPOV it and put it back. Clearly they did not largely nationalize, and they were to a large extent good for business. This is not about Italy, BTW andy. Sam Spade 04:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not only did they "not largely nationalise" they didn't nationalise period. As for the Nazis, your own source says "Anti-Labor Union - felt unions operating in own self interest - not serving the state." but anyway, your source isn't a real source, it's just a set of classroom notes. AndyL 04:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So sam, are socialists usually "good for business"?AndyL04:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to know Sam's take on the meeting between Hitler and the industrialists on Feb. 20, 1933, at Goering's house, when they gave much needed financial support to his election campaign. Danny 04:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Nazi position on private sector versus public sector was ambiguous. When they came to power, the government owned a large portion of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (after the 1932 Gelsenkirchen affair) and large shareholdings in the leading banks (after the 1931 banking crisis). it is true that these shareholdings were re-privatized by 1937. However, the Nazis also created some very large public industries - the Hermann Goering steelworks at Salzgitter and at Linz in Austria; the Volkswagen works; the Organisations Todt for highway construction. They also nationalized some of the few remaining private railroads in Germany, such as the Luebeck-Buechen RR and the Braunschweigische Landeseisenbahn. Furthermore, the SS began to build up a huge industrial empire. For example, the SS controlled 95 percent of the German mineral water market (including brands such as Apollinaris). These large state holdings that were built up by the Nazis should be part of the discussion. I would also like to see a correction of the claim that the Nazis did nothing to interfere with the profits of the large industrial firms. Look at Gustav-Hermann Seebold, Ein Stahlkonzern im Dritten Reich. Der Bochumer Verein, 1972-1945. In page 113 of the paperback, Seebold says that the Bochumer Verein had the amount of corporate tax it paid doubled as the Nazi government sought to tax away the excess profits being made by munitions makers. That should be added too. --Jmkleeberg 03:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)