Talk:Nazism and socialism/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Nagelfar, you are currently stating your personal analysis of nazism and fascism as fact. That is not NPOV.—Eloquence

I agree with Eloquence: this article is currently heavily biased. Most problematic seems to be the introductory text, before the supporters' and critics' positions are summarized. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A few points, with disputed text emphasized:


  • The view that the Nazis were socialists is nevertheless rejected among modern socialists and by most historians, since the Nazi movement itself did not exist to the present as there was sweeping denazification of every politic that was allowed to persist following WWII.
The reason given is an opinion. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Therefore today's left socialists follow a more linear Soviet view...
First, it's not only socialists who consider claims that nazism were some kind of socialism a smear tactic. Second, why Soviet view? That is hardly impartial and insinuates that opponents of that view were connected with the Soviets. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • ...employed with the sole motive of associating socialist policies with genocide, mass murder, forced labor and aggressive expansionism, which are all based in a historic circumstantial context rather than one of a belief structure of how to internally organize a society.
To see that this is very non-NPOV, it suffices to read the relevant pages on Nazism, the NSDAP and Nazi Germany here in Wikipedia. Also, invoking the historical context is is often employed as a rhetoric means to dissociate acts from those who acted and their beliefs in an attempt to excuse those who acted and to claim they were not responsible for those acts. Such writing is non-encyclopedic. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Addendum: the whole sentence says anyway that "[socialists consider this label] a smear tactic employed with the sole motive...", so it's highly non-NPOV to add the judgement about this consideration in the "historical context" clause, which therefore should just be deleted. Lupo 15:50, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • ...the black from the Fascist uniform...
The discussion on the color of the uniforms is irrelevant in this context and furthermore, I have not found any corroborating source for the reason for why the uniforms were brown. The German Historic Museum just says that the Nazis chose brown to distinguish themselves from the communist red and the fascist black, and also that brown uniforms were cheap at the time because of the dissolvement of the German colonial troops after WW I. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • (Under the heading "Supporters") In support of this assertion, The Nazis openly opposed the workings of unregulated Capitalism, and set up large 'Labor Fronts' and other workers associations.
Not "In support of this assertion, ...", please. More neutral wording would be in order, how about "Supporters of this position point out that...". To give readers a better chance to assess the reasons why the Nazis did this, I suggest adding Gleichschaltung as a related link at the end of the article. Lupo 15:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Lupo has raised a number of valid questions. Would someone please present some evidence of the claims that are made in this article? Let's see some references. For example, the claim that the Nazis "set up large 'Labor Fronts' and other workers associations"--Hitler was profoundly anti-labor. Sunray 09:13, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the Talk:Socialism page, Hitler took control of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; National Socialist German Workers' Party) in 1921. While the original German Workers? Party was both nationalist and socialist, Hitler immediately began putting his own stamp on it. He minimized the socialist features of the program (ref. excellent articles on National Socialism in Groliers and Columbia, by reputable scholars).

Should someone be judged by their words or their actions? In Hitler?s case, while amassing power, he presented himself as all things to all people. When he came to power in 1933, however, he ousted Gregor Strasser and the left wing of the party. He established a corporative state; labor lost all rights. Hitler?s actions and those of his party had nothing to do with socialism. People who have evidence to the contrary, please bring it on. Sunray 09:13, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

The author who had inserted the disputed statements and to whom Eloquence succintly pointed out the problems on Jan 8, 2004 has not bothered to defend his edits until today. I have now tried to NPOV the text without reverting his changes completely, but it's been a tough job, since I consider much of it just a big non-sequitur. I also pared down the supporters' section by summarizing the argument the author tried to make (as I understand it), because giving both views equal space would distort the actual relations — after all, only a small minority tries to defend this claim. Lupo 14:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor chose to blank this page, rather than edit it. When others had taken the time to start to clean it up this seems pretty high-handed. Ed: Will you please put the text back and edit it in such a way that you will be able to live with it? That is the way of Wikipedia, is it not? How can we work together otherwise? Sunray 16:58, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)

It has gone from merely being contentious to being almost pure gibberish. Sunray 17:17, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)

I hereby decree that Ed Poor should not edit this article any more, until and unless Sunray releases him from this ban. --Uncle Ed 18:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thankfully, your humor shows through, even in the midst of an edit war. By the powers invested in me by the goddess of Wiki, I hereby release you from this ban :) Sunray 18:18, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
Thanks be, for this magnanimous boon. I feel the rays of sunshine falling on my face once more, released from the murky confines of my dungeon. Wikipedians of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our brains! ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I hate all "XXX and YYY" articles, they suck. They want me to create "Conservatism and Nazism", "Nazism and Liberalism" and "USA and Nazism". However, I wont so you can all breath a sigh of relief.

But I will request that the supporters of the "Socialism = Nazism" idea please move this page to something a little more appropriate like "Thoughts that Socialism is a form of Nazism" or "Ideas common to both Socialism and Nazism" or something. Maybe take Fascism instead. Nazism is a specialization of Fascism and it is probably easier to find similarities between Fascism and Socialism. BL 19:14, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree it is indeed a very silly article about a complete non-subject, but I moved it here to stop it polluting the socialism article. As User:Lir kept insisting upon defining Nazism as a type of socialism. G-Man 19:20, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Even though I may not agree to the existence of this article, may I point out "The Road to Serfdom", by F. A. Hayek, which compared the outcomes of both Nazism and Socialism? It may be of interest for the writers of this article and even for the contents of it -obviously, as an opinion on the subject. Sth like "Hayek, in ... stated that the outcomes of Nazism and Socialism were basically similar: centralization, and slavery of the citizens towards an all-powerful State". Just for the record, I have no aim to fight for this. (Hayek the Nobel Prize in Economics winner).

The comparison between the two really belongs in an Encyclopedia, but I do not know exactly where.Pfortuny 19:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)