Talk:Nazism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Saddhiyama's changes.

Saddhiyama, I undid your changes. Firstly you confuse Nazism, the ideology with Germany under Hitler. It's not the same thing. Secondly your claim that the view of national socialism as being a form of socialism has been rejected isn't supported by your source. The source only discusses that claim from the view of Hitlers Germany (hence making the same mistake as you) and nowhere does it claim that it has "been rejected by historians and economicists in recent times." --OpenFuture (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the quotations I provided in the section above of both sources. They both specifically says nationalsocialism, not Germany under Hitler. Interestingly enough exactly like the sources provided for the current version of the section does. As such your objection could just as well be a valid criteria for removing the claim for the current wording of the section. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the rejection in recent times, you are correct, in that the rejection of modern historians and economists of the theory in itself is probably not enough for such a claim in Wikipedia, we would need a source that expressly states that. However it could be reworded to say that these specific economists and historians rejects it (until I find a source for a more general claim about rejection). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You basically need a commonly used textbook for political science claiming "National socialism is not a form of socialism" and I doubt that you'll find that, as it evidently is, and as it is a historical fact that national socialism grew out of socialism. That socialists doesn't like it doesn't change the facts. Anarcho-capitalism is an idiotic ideology that grew out of liberalism. As a liberal I don't like it, but that doesn't mean I have a right to edit Wikipedia to deny the fact that the ideologies are related. Wikipedia is about NPOV and RS, not your political standpoints. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just soapboxing. I don't particularly care about the personal ideologies of editors, I do care about the correct representation of current academical research. You keep repeating that "it is a historical fact that national socialism grew out of socialism", but have provided no support for it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you find ONE reliable source on the ideological and historical roots of National socialism that claims otherwise? I mean honestly, where do you think "socialism" in "national socialism" comes from? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The same place that "Democratic" and "Republic" came from in the name "German Democratic Republic," a/k/a, "Communist East Germany." I haven't seen a single reputable sourced, not quoted out of context, that supports your views. National Socialism is just Fascism with an obsession with race...and Fascism is decidedly "Anti-Socialist." [1] Nazism has/had as much to do with Socialism as it had to do with Democracy...and we're not putting the info box for "Democracy" on this page either. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

On another note the claim about "right wing socialism" in the current form is exclusively sourced with either politically slanted works or just generally weird sources.

• George Bailey, Germans. This is a memoire (!) written by a former "Radio Liberty director in the Reagan Administration". He is stated to be a "linguist", even with an academic degree it is hardly a valid source for this.
• Mark Cumming. The Carlyle encyclopedia (?!). Standard text book? An encyclopedia on Thomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle used as a source for the definition of nazism. That is just hilarious.
• Don Caldwell No more martyrs now: capitalism, democracy, and ordinary people. This is a book about the South African government and its business policies.
• Murray N. Rothbard. Left, Right, and the Prospects for Liberty. An obviously politically slanted book, and not in any way a representation of the mainstream academic view of the subject.

The sentence that Nazism "officially promoted a form of right-wing socialism" based on these sources should be revised. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a good compromise would to say that Nazism has roots in socialism. According to "The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science" by Neal Riemer and Douglas Simon: "Nazism's roots include racism, anti-Semitism, elitism, totalitarianism, nationalism, socialism, militarism, economic autarky, and the "might makes right" doctrine." -- Vision Thing -- 11:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a compromise could be saying that national socialism started out as a nationalistic form of socialism, but that the socialist agenda grew weaker over time, especially as a result of Hitler getting rid of socialist elements in the NSDAP. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Socialism" was merely an epithet used by 19th century liberals for conservative policies. In fact the policies came out of Tory paternalism and Hamiltonian liberalism and were designed to fight socialism. While most liberals would eventually accept these policies, some unreconstructed liberals, including Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, kept up the 19th century rhetoric. But there is no reason for us to put this POV into the article. The most we could say is that Nazism was in the conservative tradition. But we would need sources for that. TFD (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Socialism" was merely an epithet used by 19th century liberals for conservative policies. - ROFL! Why don't you try to push *that* POV Fringe OR through on Socialism and then we'll talk. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is one source: E.J. Feuchtwanger, Bismarck (Routledge, 2002, pp. 220-221). "[Bismarck's policies] were meant to take the wind out of the sails of the socialists and, in so far as they were opposed by the liberals, as they were bound to be, they gave Bismarck a chance to attack them as narrow adherents of Manchesterism.... Bismarck was speaking on the proposals for accident insurance that had originally been prepared for him by an official in the trade ministry.... Another draft came from a Ruhr mining and steel industrialist...who...wanted to protect industry from having to meet the cost.... It may now seem short-sighted on the part of the liberals that they opposed these proposals so strenuously, but behind anything coming from the chancellor ulterior motives were suspected. State socialism, an authoritarian regime fortified by plebiscites, Bonapartism reinforced by bread and circuses in the style of ancient Rome, these were the devices which were widely attributed to Bismarck.... The liberals saw the subsidy as 'state socialism'.... [Bismarck] strongly counterattacked those who accused him of state socialism."[2] TFD (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your argument. Are you arguing that word socialism has no real meaning so we shouldn't use it in the article? -- Vision Thing -- 15:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying that Bismarck's policies were called "socialist" based on an epithet and not because there is general acceptance that they were socialist. Bismarck's views were closer to those of Alexander Hamilton than Karl Marx. In libertarian theory which sees a freedom-statism dichotomy, there is no distinction between conservatism, anti-democratic liberalism, social liberalism and socialism - they are all the road to serfdom. TFD (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And how do you go from that to "Socialism" was merely an epithet ... for conservative policies", which is what you claimed? And how do you go from THAT to "National socialism has nothing to do with socialism"?

I'm well aware that some libertarians uses the word "socialist" about everyone who do not agree with them (including most other libertarians), in exactly the same way as many socialists call everyone who doesn't agree with them (including most other socialists) "fascists". But as we are not using the internet forums of some spotty teenagers as reliable sources here, you can't claim that this is "libertarian theory". --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim it was "libertarian theory" but that it was used by 19th century liberals as an epithet for conservative policies. Of course there were socialists in the 19th century, but the "socialism" we are discussing is conservative paternalism (note the use of "quotation marks".) TFD (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No, we are discussing socialism without quotation marks. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case there are no sources that say nazism was influenced by socialism. TFD (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This source states there existed socialist roots[3]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin, your source says that Mussolini and Mosley were socialists before they were fascists. Many of the writers you frequently quote (Courtois, Horowitz, Laqueur, etc.) were also socialists before they became right-wing. Does not mean that the modern Right "has socialist roots". TFD (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read any more than the first sentence? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

One could argue, that National Socialists called themselves "socialists" because it was fashionable at the time. In a similar way today's fascists and neo-Nazis often call themselves "national democrats." It does not mean that they are any more "democrat" than Nazis were "socialist." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

One can argue for a lot of things. :-) But saying this is ignoring the existence of Johann Plenge, Oswald Spengler, Otto Strasser, Black Front and all these ideas and pretending they just never existed. And since so many highly vocal members of this discussion seems to do just that, the debate turns quite surreal. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have shown above the current sourcing regarding "right wing socialism" is not acceptable for such an absolute statement in the lead. That there are strong elements of political control involved alongside strong elements of capitalism, as the sources I have provided as well as the Bendersky source shows is indeed the case. That some people not part of mainstream academia chose to term it "right wing socialism" might be mentioned in one of the "Economics" sub sections, but it is certainly not "official" and it should not be part of the lead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture, in Wikipedia we base articles on sources, not our personal reasoning. If you can find reliable sources for your opinions, then please present them. TFD (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The source I presented states that at its roots Nazism was also hostile to capitalism. In fact to say Nazism is "capitalism in crisis" is a Marxist viewpoint, according to this source[4]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I find it highly ironic that you require sources from me, after claiming that '"Socialism" was merely an epithet used by 19th century liberals for conservative policies.' and then trying to use your own highly personal logic to somehow get this to mean that Nazism was not socialism. Try to apply your requirements to yourself before applying them to me, thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OF, I provided the source, a book from a publishing house called Routledge. Martin, traditional conservatism was hostile to capitalism. You should read about the French Revolution. But I suppose you think that absolute monarchy is socialism. TFD (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Tammsalu, you have provided a source regarding the Marxist historiography of Nazism, information which very likely would be beneficial to add to this article, but you have to be more specific regarding the changes you request. I can't see anything specific backing up your above statement.

OpenFuture. Please keep to the subject instead of making personal attacks againt other editors. As far as I can see you have not provided a single source to back up your claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, so now Bismarck was a Nazi? No? Then your so called reasoning still rests entirely on your opinion.

Saddhiyama, I have not made and will not make any personal attacks. I will allow TFD to keep a monopoly on them in this discussion, as he usually has. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I do not understand what you mean by that comment. TFD (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What I mean, TFD, is that from the sourced (and correct) claim that accusation of socialism against Bismarck was nothing but name calling from the right to your claim: National socialism has nothing to do with socialism, there exists no connection. Even if you could come up with some sort of logical argument, which you so far have failed to do, it would be WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"[Bismarck's policies] were meant to take the wind out of the sails of the socialists and, in so far as they were opposed by the liberals, as they were bound to be, they gave Bismarck a chance to attack them as narrow adherents of Manchesterism.... Bismarck was speaking on the proposals for accident insurance that had originally been prepared for him by an official in the trade ministry.... Another draft came from a Ruhr mining and steel industrialist...who...wanted to protect industry from having to meet the cost.... It may now seem short-sighted on the part of the liberals that they opposed these proposals so strenuously, but behind anything coming from the chancellor ulterior motives were suspected. State socialism, an authoritarian regime fortified by plebiscites, Bonapartism reinforced by bread and circuses in the style of ancient Rome, these were the devices which were widely attributed to Bismarck.... The liberals saw the subsidy as 'state socialism'.... [Bismarck] strongly counterattacked those who accused him of state socialism." (Feuchtwanger) That is not my opinion, it is taken from a book published by Routledge. It was not name calling by the Right, but by the liberals. Conservatives are the Right, not liberals. TFD (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating this irrelevant quote infinitely does not make it relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Its relevance is that editors have used the claim that Nazism continued in the tradition of Bismarck's "state socialism" as evidence that Nazism was socialist. In fact that was merely the epithet assigned by liberals to German conservatism. TFD (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And since nobody said that in this discussion, your comments are completely irrelevant. QED. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Socialism and National Socialism

So, do national socialism really have socialist roots? Absolutely. It all starts with Johann Plenge and the "Ideas of 1914".

The SPD had abandoned class warfare and proletarian internationalism and had

begun the process of reconciliation with the "Ideas of 1914", the new

nationalist ideology that was to the basis of National Socialism.

All "racial comrades" were to play a role in the building of a truly socialist

society and join in the glorious struggle of proletarian Germany against

capitalist Britain.

A history of modern Germany, 1800-2000 By Martin Kitchen

Another very influential thinker was Oswald Spengler:

Marx never understood the principle of German socialism; he could never

appreciate the dictum "Every real German is a worker." The author of "Capital", who lived the whole latter part of his life in England, founded his work on English conditions and developed his concept of socialism in an English context.

His doctrine grew out of a typically British envy of the poor for the rich.

It is a private, a selfish, actually an unsocialist ideal. "Marxism is the capitalism of the working class".

H. Stuart Hughes. Oswald Spengler.

He is, in fact, criticizing Marxism for being to individualistic, to egoistic, too much like capitalism. National socialism instead took the view that socialism would be created by merging the interests of everyone in the state, in a "healthy combination of all powers".

In opposition to the ideas of 1789, the "Spirit of 1914" has a decidedly

anti-liberal point and a new type of Anti-Capitalism showed itself in the

concept of the "Volksgenossenschaft (People's League) of National Socialism."

National Socialism was conceived as a form of "state socialism" that turned

away from the "idea of boundless freedom" and trained its sights on the "Idea of a healthy combination of all powers," just as Plenge demanded. Seemingly and economy oriented on the common good had been achieved, just as an entire school of political idealists, corporatists and state socialists had demanded

during the past century.

Bernd-Rüdiger Hüppauf. War, violence, and the modern condition

Later, of course, Hitler kicked Spengler out and the amount of socialism left in the party was quite small, but the economic ideas remained: Socialism was not to happen through workers stealing the means of production from capitalists, but by merging the interests of capitalists and workers under the watchful eye of the state. In other words, the same kind of progressive non-revolutionary socialism that social democrats proposed.

And so you don't think these are fringe views, here is the textbook treatment:

Clearly there was considerable hostility to capitalism among fascists, an this hostility was not confined to renegade socialists".

As early as 1920 the infant Nazi party "included a number of statements of

intent that might generally be regarded as impeccably socialist in origin. Amongst these was the nationalisation of major industries and industrial

combines, the abolition of unearned income, profiteering, and speculation...

The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science By Neal Riemer, Douglas Simon

Much of the claims that Nazism has nothing to do with socialism is based on the arguments that the Nazis when in power never did anything socialist. But that is something that is equally true for every single socialist that comes into power (with the possible exception of Pol Pot). Socialists when they get power do what everyone does when they get power: They turn their full attention to keeping that power, and if possible getting even more. The same argument is often wielded against the Bolsjeviks, Castro and the social democrats of Europe. Lenin himself complained about the German social democrats dropping the revolutionary aim long before 1917. But of course his state socialism didn't do any good for the workers either.

Another claim is often that state socialism isn't socialism at all,and that Nazis therefore are not socialists, but that also denounces pretty much all socialism throughout the history. This view has gotten much popular the last decades, but it is a non-historical view. State socialism was generally seen as the way to go amongst socialists of this time.

During the 1890s world capitalism entered into a 20-year period of prolonged

economic expansion. On the tails of economic growth, most workers were able to achieve real improvements in their living standards. In massive numbers, workers joined trade unions and socialist parties, many of which were influenced by Marxist ideas. In Germany, for instance, the Social Democratic Party had one million members by 1912 and received four million votes in the general election of that year. In a period such as this, when life is improving without resort to militant or revolutionary struggle, people become accustomed to the notion that life will inevitably improve in the natural course of things. Socialists are not immune to such ideas. In fact, most European socialists at the time came to the view that socialism would be achieved gradually, through the slow transformation of capitalism into a kind of welfare capitalism under which workers would

prosper.

Gone was Marx's notion that socialism could only come into being through a

revolutionary transformation of society from below. In its place developed the view that capitalism would slowly grow over into socialism. At most, such a transition to socialism was seen as involving little more than the election of socialist members of parliament. The German socialist Eduard Bernstein was the most outspoken theorist of this reformist and top-down conception of socialism. But all the major European socialist parties of the time were influenced by this outlook. And, in a watered down form, it remains the perspective of social

democratic parties even today.

The dominant trend in socialist thought during this period, then, was a variant

of socialism from above. Working class struggle was seen as having little or nothing to do with the creation of a socialist society. Instead, elected socialist officials would be entrusted to oversee the smooth evolution of

capitalism into socialism.

Socialism from Below - David McNally

It's only since the fall of communism that state socialism has finally gotten completely out of fashion. But that doesn't make state socialism "unsocialist" in any reasonable sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting posting. However you should have pointed out that the statement, "The SPD had abandoned class warfare" is actually a statement from Lenin (p. 205)[5] Indeed Lenin had accused the socialists of having abandoned socialism. But that does not support your thesis. You also mention Huppauf's comment that Nazism rejected the spirit of 1789 and was a form of State Socialism. State Socialism was of course the policy of the German Conservative Party, while actual socialism was in the spirit of 1789 (i.e., the French Revolution), not in the spirit of conservative reaction. You are confusing it with the state socialism of the Soviet Union which was a totally different concept. TFD (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it supports my thesis, unless you define socialism like "What Lenin says". But that is not how word definitions work neither then, nor now, nor on Wikipedia. As you rightly mentioned before, namecalling like this is common in political debate (especially when you run out of arguments). One socialist will call another socialist a "class traitor" when they don't agree. Just as you point out that conservatives slapping the label "socialism" on things they didn't like doesn't mean it actually is socialism, the other way works the same. Just because Lenin accuses SPD of no longer being socialists, doesn't mean he is right. Lenin do not have a monopoly on the word socialism, and neither do you.

Or, in Wikipedias terms, Lenins view that SPD was not socialists are a WP:Fringe opinion. The majority of WP:reliable Sources are of the opinion that social democracy, including SPD's ideologies, are a form of socialism. Wikipedia policies work both ways, TFD. You can't just apply them when it suits you. Social democracy including the corporatists economic policy of social democratic parties throughout the 20th century are generally seen as a form of socialism, whether you like it or not.

So Lenin accused SPD (and thereby to some extent Spengler) of being non-socialist. And Spengler criticized Marx (and thereby to some extent Lenin) of being non-socialist. And you think you have the right to declare that Lenin was correct and Spengler not. Well, you don't. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture, Wikipedia is not interested in your thesis, we need actual secondary sources stating the fact, not your synthesis based on a variety of sources. The above is a classic example of WP:SYNTH and cannot be accepted as viable sourcing for your interpretation of the subject matter for this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Another source about roots in socialism is "A concise history of Nazi Germany" by Joseph W. Bendersky. It says: "In theory, at least, socialism and anticapitalism remained integral parts of the Nazi ideology, and they continued to play a very important role in Nazi propaganda and election campaigns." -- Vision Thing -- 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for editing out all the rest of the paragraph before that sentence, where it states how little socialism had to do with Nazism. If I ever want to use an example of "cherry picking," I'll be sure to use your above statement. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What part of "integral parts of the Nazi ideology" are you disputing? -- Vision Thing -- 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph that you cherry-picked that statement from shows that the "socialist" and "anticapitalist" elements of the Nazis were essentially a small fringe, and were extinguished by Hitler by 1934, who supported Capitalism and had "contempt" for the lower classes. Even your sentence above notes that the ideas of socialism and anticapitalism were only used in propanganda...but were not actually implemented. That the Nazis liked to talk about helping people...while instead creating a Far Right, totalitarian state...does not mean that the Nazis were actually involved in helping people. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

An national socialism still is not the same thing as Hitler. It doesn't matter that it was Fringe in NSDAP after Hitlers takeover, it is still a significant part of National Socialist Ideology and it's history.

And about that book, if we stop cherry picking, and actually read chapter 3 we find things like "The original intention of the party had been to win the workers away from the left by combining Nationalist and Socialist ideologies". "Despite the socialist components of their ideology", "partly because their version of socialism", "Although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology". This author, as the ones I quoted above, all state that socialism is a part of the Nazi ideology. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: OpenFuture's comment, "Lenins view that SPD was not socialists are a WP:Fringe opinion". Exactly. Lenin said that they had abandoned socialism and embraced "State Socialism, which is another term for conservatism. Why are you promoting Communist interpretations of history? TFD (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, now state socialism is conservatism. TFD, you are hilarious. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source that explains it: "[Bismarck's policies] were meant to take the wind out of the sails of the socialists and, in so far as they were opposed by the liberals, as they were bound to be, they gave Bismarck a chance to attack them as narrow adherents of Manchesterism.... Bismarck was speaking on the proposals for accident insurance that had originally been prepared for him by an official in the trade ministry.... Another draft came from a Ruhr mining and steel industrialist...who...wanted to protect industry from having to meet the cost.... It may now seem short-sighted on the part of the liberals that they opposed these proposals so strenuously, but behind anything coming from the chancellor ulterior motives were suspected. State socialism, an authoritarian regime fortified by plebiscites, Bonapartism reinforced by bread and circuses in the style of ancient Rome, these were the devices which were widely attributed to Bismarck.... The liberals saw the subsidy as 'state socialism'.... [Bismarck] strongly counterattacked those who accused him of state socialism." (E.J. Feuchtwanger, Bismarck (Routledge, 2002, pp. 220-221, my emphasis) TFD (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That does not explain anything. You just repeated an uncontroversial and irrelevant statement that you already said and sourced once and has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The source explains state socialism, which is what we are taling about. (I put it in bold so that you could find it). TFD (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it just supports your claim that Bismarck was accused of it. Nothing else. It is completely irrelevant for this debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your sources are claiming that Nazism followed in the tradition of Bismarck's State Socialism. If it was not socialism, then your claim that the Nazis were socialist is bogus. TFD (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1. My sources claim nothing of the kind. 2. You are not a reliable source. Your attempts of drawing conclusions are therefore WP:OR and not valid on Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR and then stop this silliness. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact they do, which is why I drew your attention to it. TFD (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While he is doing that you could brush up on WP:SYNTH. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

History section organisation

The history section is rather the history of NSDAP, not the history of Nazism. As an effect we now more or less have two History sections, one called "Ideological Roots" and one called "History". I suggest we change this into a History section with two subsections: "Ideological Roots" (most of the current section) and "The Foundation of the Nazi party" (current History section + the part about Fascist influence) and maybe something short about "Nazism after WWII" that talks briefly about it and has a main article link to Neo-Nazism.

Objections? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitlerism vs Nazism - Intentionalism vs Functionalism

I added Hitlerism again, as I feel this links to a very important topic currently not covered in this article. This is a major academic dichotomy in history research on the nature of the Nazi state. The functionalist school argues that there is no necessary direct link between the "ideology" of Nazism and the actions of the Nazi state, while intentionalists claim that Nazi policies were directly determined by Hitler's personal woldview. For example, a matter of debate is how much of Nazi foreign policy or anti-Semitism followed a pre-established plan set out by Hitler, and how much of it was just ad hoc realpolitik. I think this topic should be addressed. Mvaldemar (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Functionalism versus intentionalism debate probably should be mentioned. Rudolf Hess seemed to be of the intentionalist school when he barked: "Die Partei Ist Hitler!" at the Nuremberg rallies. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mvaldemar, that might be true but it is not a good reason to have Hitlerism in the first sentence. First sentence should only contain most commonly used names. For your purpose it would be better to have one properly sourced sentence in the lead and more detailed discussion in the main body. -- Vision Thing -- 21:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

define the distinction between National Socialist and Nazi Party

These articles read very similar. i suggest we define the differences between the two better. one way could be history, as wp reads now, both began on the same day, which rs refute. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The two articles state: "the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany"; "Nazism...was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany". The distinction is clear. TFD (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

National Socialist was just a redirect to Nazism, that is why they appear identical. I've fixed the redirect so that National Socialist redirects to National Socialism. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is because, up until very recently National Socialism also redirected to Nazism. It has recently been restored to its pre-redirection state. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently consensus is for recreation of the redirect state of National Socialism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

there may not be consensus. plz show where the consensus was reached. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

At Talk:National Socialism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Nazi "National Socialism" derives from the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party" created in 1920, a copy of the "German National Socialist Workers' Party" in Austria created in 1918

Let's be clear about the direct source of the name and term "National Socialism". It is derived from the party's name and the party's name was derived from the Austrian German National Socialist Workers' Party formed in 1918 and like the Nazi Party was previously named the German Workers' Party. Considering that the name "National Socialist" was adopted after the formation of the German Workers' Party, the idea of a inevitable linear connection of the term "National Socialist" in the name to ideologies with the name "national socialist" in the 1780s that may have little relation is not valid. The history of the term began to take on the clear resemblance of the meaning utilized by the Nazis and other volkisch nationalists in World War I with Johann Plenge's advocacy of an authoritarian national socialism.--R-41 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the term national socialism did not derive from the party name. The term was in use before the party was renamed NSDAP in 1920 an before the Austrian party was founded as well, as evident from the discussion as well as from this articles history section. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said in what I posted above your post. The Nazi use began in 1920, a name derived from the Austrian DNSAP formed in 1918. The Nazi usage was obviously implying their own ideology as adopted by the Nazi Party in 1920.--R-41 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that still seems to me to be the exact opposite of what you said above, where you claimed that parties and their names came before the usage of the term to denote a set of views. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Few people, unless they are writing for American conservative publications, use the term "National Socialism". They are more likely to use the term "Naziem" and even more likely to talk about {German} fascism. Before 1945, the term "Hitlerism" was probably more common. TFD (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazism is a genuine socialist movement

page 245, , line 8, The road to serfdom: text and documents By Friedrich August Hayek, Bruce Caldwell, would this be considered a rs? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

the collectivist and anti-individual character of german national socialist is not much modified by the fact that it is not proletarian, but a middle class socialism... Darkstar1st (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Marxism and National-Socialism, agree in opposing Liberalism and rejecting the capitalist social order. Both desire a socialist order of society., ludwig von mises Darkstar1st (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

the socialism of the Nazism and its economic ideas are incapable of attracting the masses to it's hooked cross.,Rudolf Breitscheid, a delegate to the Reichstag during the era of the Weimar Republic in Germany. p179 The German socialist party: champion of the first republic, 1918-1933 By William Harvey Maehl Darkstar1st (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point you may want to read WP:SYNTH. You're taking disparate sources, some predating Nazi Germany, many very much historically specific uses of the word "socialist" that no longer apply. You would need to find sources that make these connections. You connecting these sources is original research. freshacconci talktalk 11:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, NO, Hayek is not RS for this subject...and "The Road to Serfdom" is a political opinion book...of no more RS "merit" than something written by Glenn Beck or Michael Moore. And FTR: If you want to actually learn something about this, or any subject, you will not learn it from reading propaganda designed to convince people of a political opinion. I suggest starting with Ian Kershaw, not Ann Coulter. Bryonmorrigan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

How is an actual delegate member a "disparate" or "predating" source? do you have any sources supporting your claim the use of the term socialist is different than the modern term? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

According to The Cambridge Companion to Hayek, Hayek is one of "the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century". That makes his opinions relevant, and "The Road to Serfdom" is a reliable source for his views. -- Vision Thing -- 19:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

unless anyone else has a specific policy for excluding the source, i will add the text from the section title by Hayek and the socialism portal. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hayek was an economist, not a historian, and he was an extremely politicized one at that...and his views on this are as "relevant" as quoting the book "Dreams of My Father," by Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama on a page about the history of Conservatism. Either way, "The Road to Serfdom" is not RS, because it is nothing but a book of political philosophy and opinion, not facts, and is not about the history of Nazism. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

could you point to the specific policy you are citing as reason to exclude the text as not RS? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

since no specific objection other than "synth", which would be impossible as it is a quote, i will add the text to the lead. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Road to Serfdom is rs for Hayek's poltiical views, but it has no WP:WEIGHT because it is unrecognized by political scientists. The same is true of Obama's book. TFD (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan, Nazism is a political philosophy. While works of historians should have an important place in this article, so should works of political philosophers. Arguing against it means arguing against one of the core Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is not here only to present facts but opinions also. -- Vision Thing -- 17:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Which policy would that be? TFD (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV. -- Vision Thing -- 10:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"...the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." TFD (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

the Road to Serfdom is a reliable source agreed by most

According to policy, even minority veiws are to be given some room here. are there any other objections to the addition of this material? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any serious book that pays any attention to the views expressed in that book that are relevant to the article. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me any Wikipedia policy which says there must be a reliable source about a reliable source in order for the source to be a relaible source? I thought not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect in regard to minority views. Policy says exactly the opposite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

incorrect how?, articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"...the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." TFD (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_serfdom a tiny minority? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, it is unfortunate that you are unable to distinguish between mainstream and fringe theories and I was trying to be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD, it is "unfortunate" that you need to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and also that you seem to be omniscient as to what is, and is not, a "fringe theory" as you seem to WP:KNOW that every theory you like is "mainstream" and every theory you dislike is "fringe." Especially since I did not post in this section yet you manage to reply to me! Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

unless someone can provide sources supporting the road to serfdom is a "tiny minority", the parts that reference national socialism should be included according to wp:policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't include something just because it was published, our role is to summarise the field. That means you need to find sources that show the relevance of what is a polemical book per TFD's first comment. You can't keep assembling quotes to make a point, that is OR --Snowded ^TALK 10:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Breitscheid, a delegate to the Reichstag, Weimar Republic RS or not?

would there be any specific objections to including a few words by someone actually in the Reichstag during the era? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Without you providing any information about the nature of the source or its exact content yes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

i, did, see above, same section, line 6. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And as usual you provide no context whatsoever for it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not rs. TFD (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

based on which policy, tdf? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - we would have to establish the significance of his views. WP:RS - could only be used as a primary source. WP:OR - using primary sources to reach conclusions not supported by secondary sources. Hitler was a delegate too - do you think that we should use Mein Kampf (which was a bestseller) as a source for articles about politics, race, religion, economics, etc.? TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The quotation you mention above appears to show the socialist Breitscheid criticizing the Nazis for their lack of socialist credentials. I guess you want to interpret it differently, but you would be wrong. Zero^talk 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

i didn't want to interpret the text, merely add it to the article. did you have an objection, if so, based on which policy? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If his opinions are notable then they should be reported in later reliable sources. There hax been considerable writing about Nazis since the Second World War. A search on google books for "Adolf Hitler" for example returns 673,000 hits[6] TFD (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Those few words from Breitscheid would mean nothing to a reader. Even after reading several preceding pages from the source their context and significance are unclear. So I can't see any case for including them here. The onus is on the includer, you know. Zero^talk 01:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

the context is a Reichstag delegate referred to the socialism of the Nazism. is there a specific policy preventing his comments from being included? the significance being national socialism was considered socialism by a delegate in Germany during the Nazi era. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

the National Socialist plan is a plan to implement socialism

There are many things NS were in addition to socialist, here are the parts of their plan dealing specifically with social issues:

7 We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

10 The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

11 Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

13 We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). (wouldn't it be great if we could seize industries from bush, actually we did, during ww2, the US gov seized Prescott Bush(w's granddad) bank/aluminum company and assets related to war profiteering)

14 We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15 We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16 We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17 We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18 We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19 We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20 The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21 The State is to care for the elevating national health

22 We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

are any or all of the above socialism, if so, does that make NS socialist, at least in part? if not, why? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop using this page as your own personal "forum" to discuss discredited theories and hogwash that no educated person takes seriously. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop soapboxing and wasting other editors' time. TFD (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

a complication, darkstar, is that parts of the NS founding platform and similar sources were indeed socialist-sounding at first. but those were just empty campaign promises. it got them lots of street support from workers, unemployed folks, and the growing SA branch of the party. but hitler quickly started reversing or pocket-vetoing those portions as soon as he was able. he wanted the support (both potential for funds and for power) from the conservative elements like the factory owners and the army. hitler was anxious to avoid a "second revolution" and he wanted to quiet the socialistic/revolutionary factions. he dumped and/or killed-off strasser, rohem, and the like. he cut the SA. read william shirer's 'the rise and fall of the third reich' and albert speer's 'inside the third reich' for numerous mentions of hitler being embarrassed about one or another socialistic item sticking out awkwardly after he had consolidated power. sure there were token platitudes here and there like the may day / tag der arbiet parades, but that was a drop in the reality-bucket. so anyway, even the presence of socialist language in NS materials does not necessarily make it a true socialist system in the current sense of the word --any more than the USSR or the GDR were truly 'republics' even though their country-names and some of their writings spoke of being republics. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cram, thank you for the response, but i do not see a specific source refuting the plan or claiming it is not socialist? since you agree the highlighted points are socialist, do you have a source refuting the plan was actually socialist? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you need a source that calls it socialist. And then you have to explain why Hitler decided not to implement the program. TFD (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As well, you really need to review WP:RS. Darkstar1st, you are attempting to redefine Nazism by cherry-picking sources that are mostly out of context and then ask other editors to provide sources to "prove" that you are incorrect. Most sources already define Nazism on the right of the spectrum. Socialism is defined as being on the left, again according to most sources. It is therefore not up to us to prove Nazism is not socialist. You are attempting to change the definition, not the rest of us. The onus is on you to find solid sources that place Nazism under the socialist banner and without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. freshacconci talktalk 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

i am not trying to define anything left/right, i am trying to add the socialism portal to an article named nation socialism. here are 4 more sources claiming national socialist practiced socialism:

^ George Bailey. Germans: the biography of an obsession. Avon, 1978. Pp. 399.

^ Mark Cumming. The Carlyle encyclopedia. Second edition. Cranbury, New Jersey, USA: Associated University Press, 2010. Pp. 223.

^ Don Caldwell. No more martyrs now: capitalism, democracy, and ordinary people. Conrad Business Books, 1992. Pp. 32.

^ Murray N. Rothbard. Left, Right, and the Prospects for Liberty. Auburn, Alabama, USA: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010. Pp. 19. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The last one is the only one I currently have access to, but if that's the calibre of source you're drawing from, I'm afraid you don't seem to realize that the sources say what you think they say. The Rothbard essay is discussing Nazism as an extention of Bismarck's policies, which Rothbard terms "right-wing socialism". Nowhere does he cast Nazism under the banner of socialism: he is stating that Bismarckism is a type of right-wing socialism, sharing many traits of socialism. This does not in and of itself place Nazism under socialism. Socialism is a left-wing ideology. By making the comparison, Rothbard is stating that conservative governments such as Bismarck's have more in common with the left than most conservatives would like to admit. But he is not saying that Nazism is socialism. To add Nazism under the socialist portal would take a huge shift in academic thought on the topic which is clearly isn't happening. This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, not an academic journal. We have no business making those sorts of changes unless there is some groundswell of changes out there in academia. Again, this is cherry-picking sources to make them say what you want them to say. It's WP:SYNTH. freshacconci talktalk 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

if you had access to the other 3 would you change your opinion? Rothbard terms "right-wing socialism". Nowhere does he cast Nazism under the banner of socialism are you claiming right-wing socialism is not socialism? what does under the banner mean? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

darkstar, you asked earlier for MY sources? see again my "read william shirer's 'the rise and fall of the third reich' and albert speer's 'inside the third reich' for numerous mentions." i don't know of online versions of these well-known classic texts, but you can surely find them in libraries or buy up one used for cheap on amazon. read up. it is fairly well known that in terms of actual implementation of policy (versus lip-service) the national "socialists" did little that could be called socialist --except maybe the total war economic diktats which all the world powers were doing during the world war (UK and USA too). Cramyourspam (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

please cite the page number here Darkstar1st (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss our personal theories and beliefs. TFD (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nor is Talk:Strasserism, where he's pushing the same cart in the soapbox derby. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

page numbers?!? this took a while: 41 and 144 to start with. the 1990 simon & schuster paperback 3rd edition. its on googlebooks. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

thx, which book, you mentioned 2 above? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ah. oh. oops. i see. william shirer. see

http://books.google.com/books?id=sY8svb-MNUwC&pg=PA41&dq=embarrassing+%22rise+and+fall+of+the+third+reich%22&hl=en&ei=DfRcToXHF4LpgQfVnMXwAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false i'm too tired to get the speer pages today, but some day. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks, i just read both pages, the national "socialists" did little that could be called socialist, wasn't in there? would you post a few passages here you feel support that claim? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

see last two paras of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Ideology where they're woven in evenhandedly --explaining the early leftist tilt and later tilt right after consolidating power. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

could you type in a sentense or two or what you mean? i just read the last 2 para and don't see how it supports your point? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ok. your list of items at the top of this section --that list of items 7,10,11,13-22-- is from the 1920 party platform which historian shirer (i've already given the page numbers) says were just empty phrases which later embarrassed hitler and were largely dropped after hitler consolidated power. the NS did say those things, and some leaders meant it, but not the leaders who kept their jobs and/or lives so the list is moot. it wasn't enacted and the eventual top-dog hitler wanted to keep it that way. yes there were left-wing members among the early leadership --strasser and assoc-- and even as late as 1930 they were sometimes trying to get socialism items passed (but no luck). quickly the leftist/strasser followers were sidelined --and many killed-off in the 1934 purge. (i've given page numbers. i'm weary of re-summarizing the record. some other user or a private tutor will need to follow up for you if you have yet more requests.) cheers everyone. play nice.Cramyourspam (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

i ask for verification, you give page numbers, i ask for specific, you give paragraphs, i ask which sentence, you give me your opinion of the source. please type in a few lines from the source supporting your paraphrased edit, it would take much less energy than the 40 lines you typed trying to avoid the question. lol@me needing tutor and you playing nice. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

cram, the onus is on you to provide a conflicting opinion, or withdraw your objection, since you refuse, or are unable to provide the text you feel contradicts the source, the material should be included. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Its OR again Darkstar1st, you really need to spend some time on this. You can't just string material together to make a point, you have to find a source that does that. --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

more material from Nobel prize and presidential medal awarded economist Hayek

Road to Serfdom (p. 168):

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine. i would like to include some or all of this passage, unless there be objection? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

the conflict between the National-Socialist "Right" and the "Left" in Germany is the kind of conflict that will always arise between rival socialist factions, Hayek Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hayek, who is an economist and not a historian, is pretty much alone in the field with this interpretation. His statements about nazism should not be taken as facts. At best they should only be presented as Hayeks minority interpretation. Also it is undue weight to include a minority interpretation in the lead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

do you have a source to support your claim hayek is a minority interpretation? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

None needed. TFD (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC){{{

(e/c)One of the more detailed summing up of the contemporary reception of Hayek is to be found in vol 21 issue 4 of the European Journal of Political Economy. An issue devoted to the 60th anniversary of the publication of the Road to Serfdom. In this issue tribute is rightly paid to Hayeks economical theories and the impact they have had on economical thought as well as policies in recent times, but due criticism to his historical judgements is also provided. J. Barkley Rosser, Jr in the article "The Road to Serfdom and the world economy: 60 years later" (pp. 1015-1017):

"The most important difference regarding whether or not national socialism was really socialist involved the question of nationalization of the means of production, identified by Hayek himself as a part of socialism. This did not happen in Nazi Germany, even though an important faction of the Nazi Party supported such a policy as well as ending the payment of interest and of land rent. However, one of Hitler's first acts upon achieving power in 1933 was to purge this faction of the Nazi Party. The official doctrine of the Nazi Party was that of the corporate state in which class conflicts would be muted to achieve national goals and industries would be cartelized, arguably a betrayal of Hitler's original small business supporters. To the extent that one follows Marx in seeing the issue of ownership of the means of production as the crucial element separating capitalism from socialism, rather than market versus command plan, Nazi Germany would be more accurately described as “command capitalist” rather than as truly socialist.

Hayek's emphasis on Germany in RTS is unsurprising given the time period the book was written. Even though one could predict Germany's defeat by 1944, the war to achieve this and the threat it posed had dominated everything for the previous five years. This focus probably led him to certain of his predictions that now look not so wise, notably his apparent fears that any substantial increase in government intervention in the economy would almost inevitably lead to the road to serfdom. Hayek argued that crucial elements of the Nazi system were already put in place before they came to power, with the policy of cartelization and monopolization being encouraged initially by Bismarck in 1879 (p. 175).".

More telling evidence is perhaps the lack of usage of Hayeks interpretation of nazism as socialism in most major works of history of the period. The lack of mentioning in Hobsbawms Age of Extremes is obvious, but neither Mark Mazowers Dark Continent or Tony Judts Postwar accepts it (while both mentions Hayeks influence of 1980's thatcherism). The article "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry" in The Journal of Economic History (2006, vol. 66 issue 2) by Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Schneider concludes that "Under the Nazi regime private firm property was consciously preserved as a meaningful device, not least in order to make the German war economy more efficient" (p. 410-11) and elaborates this by writing (p. 394): "Today there is little doubt that the assertion of industry being an equal ally to the party in determining the fate of Germany during the Nazi period was not well founded. In this sense politics certainly took primacy over the economy, as was argued by Mason. However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, firms preserved a good deal of their autonomy even under the Nazi regime. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies. But it is not so obvious why widespread nationalization of industry was not undertaken. For it definitely cannot be argued that there existed a kind of quasi-socialization with private firm property only preserved nominally.".

As such Hayek has simply become obsolete as a foundation for historical analysis regarding this subject, as new figures and historical studies has proven his premise of his interpretation wrong. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

do you have source to support your claim hayek has become obsolete? what study proved hayek wrong? what specific policy are you citing as reason to not allow this source? unless there be further objection, including specific policy, i will add text from hayek. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on you to show that his views on the subject are widely accepted today. Even if they reflect the views expressed in the webistes you visit, but are not taken seriously in the mainstream. TFD (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. WP:RS does not place any "onus" on those who propose using a source which meets WP:RS. Hayek is not a "nut-case" by any means, and it is clear that the only reason for excluding his writings here is simply "IDONTLIKEIT" and "ANYTHINGIDONTLIKEISFRINGE". Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:RS subsection WP:USEBYOTHERS is pretty clear on this subject. You need to show that Hayek is widely cited as an authority on this particular subject without "unduly [representing] contentious or minority claims." So, yes, the onus is on you. freshacconci talktalk 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, the source i am trying to add material has been used by others: The Road to Serfdom is among the most influential and popular expositions of market libertarianism and remains a popular and influential work in contemporary discourse, selling over two million copies, and remaining a best-seller. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These same arguments have been made in articles about climate change, evolution, etc. The popularity of fringe theories does not make them mainstream. TFD (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the author is not generally called "fringe" so we are left with a wonderful example of "IDONTLIKEITSOITMUSTBEFRINGE" as noted above. As for the elegant (?) attempt to link this to climate change and evolution - that is wondrously inapt as a comparison. A Nobel Prize in Economics rather implies the person is an authority on Economics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Read it again: You need to show that Hayek is widely cited as an authority on this particular subject without "unduly [representing] contentious or minority claims." Nothing there about fringe. It's called undue weight. And you need to WP:AGF. This has nothing to do with like or dislike. freshacconci talktalk 17:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

fresh, plz provide the source that describes hayek as making unduly contentious or minority claims. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

National Socialism = Hitlerism?

This article is confusing a few different terms into one coat rack. The term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. not National Socialist, but National Socialist party. the term Nazi belongs on the Nazi party article or nazi germany article. any mention of nazi here should be minor as it refers to specific national socialist, not all national socialist. the 1st source in the article is a time magazine piece on japan, is that really the best source we can find to start off the national socialism article, were the Japanese nazi's?.

National socialism was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany., was it really? nazism was, but national socialism may not have been. several editors have made note hitler tried to remove the socialist elements, therefore in the end were nazi's socialist at all? much of the confusion in this article appears to be the conflation of the the four terms nazi,(a member of a party) nazism,(the ideology of said party), hitlerism, (perhaps the last stage of evolution of the nazism), and national socialism(a type of socialism different from international socialism only in the scope of size. one appeals to all workers, the other appeals to all workers of a specific nation.) Darkstar1st (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(automatic message) after reading the sum of certain users' comments in the 'talk' section, this user's head exploded at 03:01 EST. exploded-head goo removal teams are responding. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, national socialism was and is bigger than NDSAP, although not much. :-) Perhaps this needs to be clarified somewhat. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Nazism, the ideology utilized and made important by the Nazi Party. The term "National Socialism" in common usage refers to that was developed and used by the Nazi Party. Other uses of the term "national socialism" should be found on a disambiguation page. I agree that it should not be assumed that Nazism was an exclusive ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany, as Nazi policies were undertaken by a number of political parties affiliated with Nazi ideology in other countries. This article should not be merged with the Nazi Party or Nazi Germany, it would bloat those articles, this is focused on the ideology.--R-41 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested merging the articles. Are you suggesting that we have one for Nazism and one for National Socialism? The overlap after all is massive, it seems unnecessary. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Although OpenFuture has been able to find examples where writers have added the adjective national to socialist without anticipating that OpenFuture would claim that they were meant "National Socialist", it would confuse the average reader to the extent that we would need a disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, are "Hitlerism" and "Hitlerismus" such common names for Nazism that they should be in the lead? -- Vision Thing -- 20:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt it. I have not heard those terms commonly used for Nazism. Unless some evidence can be shown otherwise.--R-41 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

would you know of a different source for the lead? right now it appears Nazism is a Japanese source? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Google ngram tool gives a view of the relative usage of the terms[7], seems while "Hitlerism" was the predominant term in the early 1930's, it is slowly declining in use. (updated ngram link to include "National Socialism")--Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

wow, nice tool Martin, thx man! here is national socialist from 1842-1919 [8] further evidence the history section should begin earlier than 1919. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it the usage of the word before 1919 is quite different. That said, having a section in History which mentions this is OK, if you can find some reliable sources on it. I seem to remember reading about both national socialism and national communism pre-war, but I can't find anything now, so maybe I misremember... --OpenFuture (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

i suggest the usage of the word, meaning socialism limited to a specific nation as opposed to uniting workers globally, has not changed in the least. the trouble we are having with this article is including nazism, which refers specifically to the party. therefore the rs presented are conflicting because we are using rs for two different terms to edit the same article. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I found these snippets referring to "National Socialism" in the period 1883 to 1893:

• "Moreover, Lassalle was, unlike Blanqui or Marx, essentially a national Socialist , who wished, above all things, to raise the Fatherland to a high level of greatness and glory"[9]
• "Of the workmen's unions, which had grown so rapidly in Germany in the years following 1860, some had attached themselves to the national socialism of Lassalle,"[10]
• "Both now had come under the influence of the international socialism of Karl Marx, and they used their influence to prevent the workmen's unions which had sprung up since 1860 from attaching themselves to the national socialism of Lassalle"[11]

So certainly "national socialism" existed as a concept distinct from "international socialism" in Germany before Hitler came along. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, I'd claim (but don't think I'd have any sources for it) that national socialism before 1919 is a sort of precursor to "socialism in one country", ie the idea that socialism doesn't have to be global, but by isolating itself a country would be able to become socialist by itself and in it's own right, and that the socialist party of one country does not need the socialists of other countries.

There are no clear borders between this national socialism and the 1919 one, but in the 1919 one the focus is on nationalism and racism, while before that, the focus was on socialism. As such you could say that pre-1919 NS is a nationalistic socialism, while post 1919 NS is a socialistic nationalism. And that shift seems to have come with, or at least been best expressed with, the "ideas of 1914", which therefore as such can be seen as the start of national socialism as an independent ideology, and not just a variation of socialism. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No it did not exist as a "distinct concept", it is just that some writers chose to describe Ferdinand Lasalle's socialism as national, because he supported the foreign policy of imperial Germany. It was not a precursor to "socialism in one country" but the precursor to 20th century social democracy. If editors believe that the Nazis adopted the term because they believed they were in Lasallean tradition, then they need to find sources. TFD (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole point was exactly that it wasn't a distinct concept. I'm happy to see you have understood the importance of sources, that's good. I haven't seen anybody claiming that " the Nazis adopted the term because they believed they were in Lassallean tradition", so yet again you seem to argue against a position that nobody has expressed. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Nazis would never have officially endorsed the views of Lasalle's national socialism because Lasalle was a Jew and Nazis are violently anti-Semitic. Lasalle's national socialism is unrelated.--R-41 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-sequitur argument. And OpenFuture and TFD are correct: the fact that both LaSalle and the German National Socialist party used the word does not prove anything in and off it self. You need sources to make a claim like this. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

etymology, earliest recorded occurrence in the language

I suggest we include the earliest recorded use of the term National Socialism in English, from 1870, The North British review, Volumes 52-53, page 222. We still do not have an acurate account of who coined the term, but at least when know the earliest recorded occurrence in english. unless opposition, i will add this text to the beginning of the etymology section. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this article is about the ideology derived from the Nazi Party. Add that as a note on National Socialism (disambiguation) or create an article like National Socialism (historical etymology).--R-41 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

no, the nazi party came much later, therefore impossible to derive from the future. 1834 the term Nationalsozialismus first appears in Print: Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, page 36. without any further objection, i would like to add this as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a mention of "first recorded use" (but no more than a sentence) would be relevant here, in the lead of the "History" section. Can we find a source that supports that "National Socialism" first was used as an opposition of "International Socialism"? This seems to me to be how it was used, but we don't want any OR. If we can find that, the history section could start something like The german term "Nationalsozialismus" first appeared in 1834.[ref] It was up until WWI used as (whatever that source says) and developed into a distinct ideology mainly after WWI. [ref] --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, provided a usable source can be found that supports such a claim (meaning the connection with prior usage and a development into a distinct ideology). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

what is the problem with the sources listed? The North British review and Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, both published, both reliable? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

1834 Nationalsozialismus was reverted again, no specific policy cited, no argument made in talk. i will add the text back unless there is a reason why we can not mention the word Nationalsozialismus was used in a book in 1834. [12] Darkstar1st (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any particular reason why we can't mention it. I do however think that it doesn't actually improve the article. It just becomes a piece of trivia when not connected to the rest of article in any way. What would be better is to add a section on the early usage of the term, including this entry. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Saddhiyama, you need a source which says its linked, it can't be used in isolation --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

which policy are you citing snowed? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

that is the very definition of the section where i placed the fact, etymology section. Websters dictionary definition: earliest recorded occurrence in the language. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty awkward presentation in isolation. It might work if fleshed out just a tiny bit -- perhaps a source discussing the unrelated earlier usage could be drawn upon. By the way, editors don't have to cite policy for edits that are primarily a matter of style. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

so we are preventing the date of the actual date of the etymology aka earliest recorded use of the term for which the article is so named, in the section named etymology because of style? if there is no policy excluding the mention, it should be restored, if you wish to improve the style, please do so, the source is available free, online, and it is accompanied by photos of the book, and pages, and publication date, which matches the records found in librarys and publishing companies. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your inclusion is WP:OR. Wikipedia does not allow OR but if you go to the policy's talk page, you may persuade the community to change the policy. TFD (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I ask you to read WP:OR. Your assertion is not only not founded in WP:OR, your position is OR in itself - which is a wonderful recursion! If you wish WP:OR to reflect what you have claimed it means, it is up to you to get it changed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The wording is clear. TFD (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

tfd, you agree the source is reliable and published, your objection is i have synthesized the source, which is impossible since i have not included any material from the book, rather noted the namesake was mentioned in the book, ergo, the etymology, or earliest recorded use Darkstar1st (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)WP:OR is clear. Your usage is not. The existence of usage of a phrase in a source is, and always has been, the source itself. It is not OR to find the phrase in the source. BTW, look in the OED. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make the argument that OR should be allowed, then suggest it in the policy discussion pages. But WP:OR does not make the exception you claim. TFD (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Read what I rwrote -- I see a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT in your response. You are substantially misstating what WP:OR actually says - and that is not particularly a sound basis for discussion. Your version would require infinite recusrion to have "A says B said that C said ..." ad infinitum. All that is needed as a source for what A said as a quote is ... A. Again - go to WP:OR iff you wish it to be altered - right now it is not congruent with what you say it says. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just find a phrase and insert it with the obvious implication of a link unless you have a secondary source which makes the link. This is basic stuff and the its the responsibility of those wishing to make change to raise it at WP:OR if they can't get agreement to that change. You should know this Collect, we've been through this dance before --Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

but i didn't insert a phrase, or any material from the book. i simply noted the word appeared in the book. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

and if an academic had written an article, referencing that word in that book and linking it the Nazism it would be fine. --Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think a person first using the term in the 19th century would have been likely to say "oh -- and Hitler will use the term in fifty years"? I suggest that Wikipedia does not require sources to be Nostradamus. Really. Collect (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Impossible I would say and I didn't suggest it. However with the amount of study which has gone on post Hitler I would expect that some academic would have written something which made the link. Its that which is needed to prevent this failing WP:OR. At the moment the connection seems to be by Darkstar1st, maybe he should write an article and get it accepted by a quality journal? --Snowded ^TALK 17:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that some academic would have written that there is a link between "national socialism" and "national socialism"? That seems pretty superfluous. What is needed, again, is somebody supporting what YOU say, namely that "national socialism" in 1919 means something completely different that has no relation to what "national socialism" means in 1914. That is still the claim that needs supporting, will always be the claim that needs supporting and will always be the claim you can't support. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are claiming that National Socialism is connected with a nineteenth century ideology, although you, Darkstar1st and Collect are unable to explain whether it is from 1834 or 1871, whether it refers to Lassalle or Marx or even the Conservatives. It's Wac-a-mole. Every time an objection is placed you come up with a different source that provides a different explanation. This conversation has gone on too long, with you and Darkstar1st for some reason creating multiple discussion threads. Instead of explaining your personal opinions about the subject, could you please present your edit requests along with sources. There is by the way a disturbing aspect in the claim that Nazism was invented by Jews (Lassalle or Marx). TFD (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideologies are usually not "from" any date, and does not need to refer to any specific person at all, and unsurprisingly several persons can have the same ideology, you know. Your comment here is fundamentally mistaken on all levels. And just a giant straw man. In the end, you are still the one that has the burden of proof in this, when you claim that Plenges and Spenglers use of "National Socialism" was completely unrelated to all previous use of the word, which is fundamentally what you are claiming. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful in the discussion if you would familiarize yourself with the history of socialism. Lassallian and Marxian socialism are the two main strands which have come down to us today as social democracy and communism. While you may not distinguish between Tony Blair and Pol Pot, mainstream thinking does. From which stream do you think NS developed? And yes dates can be assigned to modern ideologies to some degree. There was no Green Party for example in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I guarantee you that I'm more familiar with this subject than you are. "From which stream do you think NS developed?" - Totally irrelevant. "to some degree" - Yes. To some degree, usually a question of what century or possibly what decade. Not "this year or that year". --OpenFuture (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

etymology, dates disputed

The current version has the earliest known occurrence at 1936. National Socialism was a kind of Coué method. I presented a published record(with photos and free access) of the word in print in 1834. i do not wish to include any material from these sources, rather make note the article namesake exist within the source. this is the very definition of Etymology, tracing the earliest known occurrence of a term. this section is to debate the inclusion of these dates in the etymology. Objections should be directed at the source please. ex: this couldn't have been published in 1834 because the book also mentions airplanes.(not really, just an example).

• 1834 the term Nationalsozialismus appears in Print: Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, page 36.
• objections:
• 1870, the term National Socialism appears in The North British review, Volumes 52-53, page 222.
• objections:

Darkstar1st (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

1936 is clearly absurd... Anyway, the North British reviews mention is however irrelevant as it's neither the first mention, nor has it anything to do with this article. It's from a an article about the "sects of the Russian church".

"[...] there is a common endeavour to formulate into religious dogmas the socialistic and communistic tendencies of Russian nationality. It would scarcely be a paradox to say that the Russian Raskol is merely a religious expression of national socialism."

You really need to look at the context and think a bit before you act, Darkstar1st...

i did:), context is irrelevant to etymology, as the earliest known uses of a word IS its etymology. a chronological account of the birth and development...evolving changes in form and meaning.. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

However, there is a mention from 1850, in "The Anglo-Saxon". Referring to instating national pensions schemes, the quote is "This, or national socialism, must be the end of the modern principle of association". Referring to state pensions is similar to how the term is used later in the 1800's where the term is generally referring to state ownership of capital or companies, or other state involvement in private businesses, such as minimum wage etc. In other words "national socialism" is in the 1800's used to refer to what we today call "socialism"; that the state involves itself in the economy to increase equality in the country.

But we can't claim that this is the earliest use of the term. Claiming so would be OR. We need to find a source saying that is *is* the earliest use. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

it is not the earliest use of the word, and we do not need to claim anything, rather report the dates the word was used, the more dates, the better constructed timeline as required by the very definition of etymology. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like replacing a small bit of OR with a massive chunk of OR. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

it is impossible for a fact to be OR, i merely reported the word was used, not how it was used :) Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

State pensions, public health care, government direction of the economy - all of this is State Socialism, the ideology of the German Conservative Party. You need to explain (if you wish to assert that Nazism developed from 19th century ns) what ns was - was it conservatism, social democracy or revolutionary socialism? TFD (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alas - once again there is conflation between knowing something and the WP policy that the reliable sources stand on their own without us inserting our own opinions etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"all of this is State Socialism" - Correct.

" the ideology of the German Conservative Party" - And SPD, and pretty much every democratic socialist party in the history of the world. Just as you yourself pointed out above, "Lassallian and Marxian socialism are the two main strands which have come down to us today as social democracy and communism." - Yes, absolutely correct. And State Socialism is Lassallian. This state socialism policy, btw, in many English sources of the 19th century, is called "national socialism". Surprise, surprise. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel

reliable source, or not? please cite policy if you feel this should not be included as a source. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably reliable, but what do they say? I've not been able to find this source online. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not an obvious place to look for basic information about topics that have been covered in thousands of books. TFD (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, well if anyone can find a reference to the term pre-1936, this article would be better off. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Socialism not implemented globally, is National Socialism, the new socialism, C.B Spahr Boston 1889

Above is paraphrase, see:Socialism, The H.W. Wilson company, 1915, page 57. Suggest we include more in the history section about national socialist pre-nazi party. I would like to include some text by the reliable source C.B. Spahr unless objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it related to Nazism? If not it should be put in its own article named something like: National Socialism (C. B. Spahr).--R-41 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely related to national socialism. National socialism is, as above, first a contrast to international socialism, ie, it is a socialism driven by people who do NOT want to cooperate with socialists abroad and do not want to create a global international socialism, but want a socialism in only their country relevant to only their people. Later (see the well referenced history section of this article for references) some socialists like Plenge and Spengler hang on to these ideas in a much more racist and anti-semite manner, and National Socialism as covered in this article appears. The terms as such are related, and the border between the early "national" socialism and the later "nationalistic" socialism is not sharp. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of examples of "socialism not implemented globally", Stalin's "socialism in one country" and regional variants of socialism based on particular cultures - they cannot all be summed up as "National Socialism" in the Nazi sense, that is connecting them with the ultranationalist and anti-Semitic goals of the Nazis. As I said, if it is not directly related to Nazism, another article can be created for that topic.--R-41 (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

your challenge of CB Spahr requires a conflicting source reflecting your claims. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It *is* directly related to Nazism as explained above. Please note, R-41, that the words "directly related" and "the same" are different words that mean different thing. Nobody here has claimed that Stalin was a Nazi. That's a straw man. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany", which is what this article is about. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What Saddhiyama is saying is related to what I am saying. This article is about the ideology and practice of Nazism as developed by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. I brought up Stalin's "socialism in one country" as an issue related to the idea of national socialism as any socialism not committed to internationalism because "socialism in one country" focused on development exclusively in the Soviet Union, which would make it qualify for "national socialism" under such a definition. As for Spahr, do C. B. Spahr's claims relate to Nazism as developed by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany?--R-41 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"It has nothing to do with "the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany" - Yes, it does. It's clearly related. And there has been much discussion on Talk:National Socialism about this and apparently the conclusion is that it *does* have a lot to do with each other, as the general viewpoint is that it should be in the same article. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"This article is about the ideology and practice of Nazism as developed by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany." - Then we need to resurrect the "National Socialism" article. Again. Which happened last week, and was just reversed. How come you didn't join into that discussion? Oh, wait, R-41, you *did*. So then you *do* think that this National Socialism is related to "the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany". OK, Good. Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I said on the National Socialism page that National Socialism in present common usage refers to that National Socialism of the Nazis. I am not trying to say that any form of "national socialism" refers to Nazis. Wikipedia policy on common usage of terms says that the common usage is to be used for the primary article. OpenFuture, your frustration with my decision on the National Socialism talk page appears to be being directed towards me in an aggressive and sarcastic manner when you said the following: "How come you didn't join into that discussion? Oh, wait, R-41, you *did*. So then you *do* think that this National Socialism is related to 'the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany'. OK, Good. Case closed." Please do not assume bad faith or take an unwelcoming tone towards me or other users, that is against Wikipedia policy and I do not tolerate discussion on that kind of irrational level. The same should be said for the users TFD and BryonMorrigon, refrain from attacking other users or having an unwelcoming tone. Let's keep a cool head on this and cooperatively resolve the issues here. Now back to the pressing question, can it be demonstrated that C. B. Spahr's claims relate to Nazism as developed by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany?--R-41 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using sarcasm while pointing out the inconsistency in your position. The inconsistency remains though. Either "National Socialism" as used before NSDAP was taken over by Hitler is a separate ideology from "Nazism" under Hitler, and then it should have it's own article. You claim it shouldn't. Or it is sufficiently the same to be in the same article. Which somehow you claim also is not he case. Claiming that everything about National Socialism should be on the disambiguation page is patently absurd, as most of the History section of this article belongs to National Socialism in the non-Hitler version, which you of course know, as you participated in the discussion on National Socialism and hence saw what I wrote there. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Both Nazism and National Socialism are terms commonly used to describe the ideology of the Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and I would also add other Nazi parties outside of Germany that are related in ideology to the Nazi Party in Germany. National Socialism in common use is the long-form term used to describe the ideology, Nazism is the common short form term. Common usage of terms is what Wikipedia uses to determine what the article should be under a term that has a variety of uses. In this case, National Socialism in modern usage mostly refers to Nazism, thus by Wikipedia policy on common usage, it is a term to describe Nazism. It is not absurd to have a disambiguation page for forms of ideology also known as "national socialism" that are not related to Nazism, it is beneficial for users looking for another use of the term.--R-41 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So you still claim that there are two ideologies, both called national socialism, one of which is the ideology of the Nazi party. Is this correct? What is the other ideology? Do you have sources to support that claim? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Searching through ancient books to find examples of which the adjective "national" modifies "socialism" is original research and a waste of editors' time. TFD (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopeadia, we should be able to explain complex topics. My understanding is that "National Socialism" existed as a concept in Germany since atleast the late 19th Century. Hitler's "German Workers Party" added "National Socialist" to the name in order to make the party more electorally palatable. Obviously "National Socialism" had a different meaning back before the 1920s, but just like the Swastika is associated with the Nazis, it doesn't mean we should ignore the earlier history and the Hindu meaning of the symbol. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You will find reliable sources that show the Nazis copied the swastika design. You got any sources that say that Hitler copied the term NS from 19th century texts? TFD (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why 19th century texts? The term was in use during the 20th century as well, and during WWI when Plenge made his ideas. You have to assume that when he said "National Socialism" he used the word as it was in common usage of that time. Or you have to find sources saying that he did *not*. You are the one who needs to present evidence in this case. This is completely self-evident, and I'm sure you know it to. You are the one who claims that suddenly, seemingly over night, the meaning of the word changed from one thing to another completely unrelated thing. You haven't got the least shred of evidence for that position. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

One editor claiming that something is self-evident is not generally accepted as proof --Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So where is your source that The White House was the same house in 1919 as in 1918? And where is your source that "Waffles" meant the same food in 1926 and 1927? If words or expression changes meaning, the burden of proof is on the one that claims the word changed meaning. This *is* self-evident, and if you don't like it, I suggest you bring it up for RfC or Mediation. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on reliable secondary sources rather than making assumptions, holding truths to be self-evident and generally forming your own conclusions. Otherwise I commend you to a study of related philosophical questions of identity --Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So why don't you then find a reliable secondary source, instead of continuing this pointless discussion? You do claim that the word "national socialism" meant something different before and after WWI and that the two concepts have no relationship. That needs a source. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you need a source in order to add 19th century ns into the article. You have not even established that ns was a term used in the 19th century, just scattered examples in primary sources where writers described socialism as "national". TFD (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[13] indicates pre-1900 usage. [14] offers an interesting idea that "national socialism" is a French construct. And well anteceding 1900. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first source says that the Ligue des Patriotes, which it calls "new Right" and opposed to the socialists, "would mutate into "national socialism"" (note the author's "scare quotes). No claim that it developed from anything called ns in the 19th century. Your second quote makes no mention that the term ns was used in the 19th century and quotes someone using the term in 1941. Could you please read your sources before presenting them. TFD (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, we have already established that it was used in the 19th century, that's completely uncontroversial. [15], [16].

The discussion is if that pre-war use was related to the post-war use, or if it is a new unrelated concept that happens to use the same words. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All you can say is that some writers used the term "national" as an adjective when describing certain types of socialism, but you cannot say that it existed as a term that was used in any consistent fashion. You have to show that it existed as a concept using reliable secondary sources. Your examples merely show that various writers have used the adjective "national" to describe Marxism, conservatism and reform socialism, as well as German socialists organized at a national level following confederation of the German states. A Google book search for "evil nazis" for example returns 617 hits.[17] That does not mean that they are referring to a distinct ideology. TFD (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hah, no. Do you have secondary sources saying "The term national socialism existed as a concept in 1930". Of course not. The only time you would get a source saying "The term national socialism existed as a concept before WWI" (which is what I claim) is if that sentence is followed by "but it was another concept than the one promoted by NSDAP". In other words, you are requiring a source that would only exist if you were correct, which is absurd. Stop assuming you are correct, and learn about about history instead. You are the one who claims that the concept of "national socialism" (which *clearly* existed before WWI, read the sources in the list I linked to, you'll see it's pretty consistent) is a different one from "national socialism" post WWII. That is what needs a source, and that will not change. We also provide loads and loads of different sources. You provide no support for your standpoint at all. Because you have none, because you are completely and obviously wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Socialism, The H.W. Wilson company 1915, Reliable source or not?

please list the specific policy against including this as a source. should no such objection be made, i will start adding material from the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

National Socialism is a type of Socialism, according to wikipedia.

Several different National Socialist groups are mentioned here, not just the nazis. We should add the socialism portal as it is accepted as a type of socialism on this article and supported by several RS(not just the RS in the nazi sub-section) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Nationalist_and_ethnocentric_socialism Darkstar1st (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy of common usage, National Socialism refers to Nazism as practiced by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. Almost every mainstream socialist organization has denounced Nazism. They have denounced it for its close connections with German industrialists and for banning workers' strikes and independent trade unions. I have heard a common argument of "what is in a name" for Nazism, for example, because North Korea is called the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, does that mean that it should be assumed that in practice it is a popular democracy representing the will of all the Korean people.--R-41 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And as has already been shown (with proper sources) countless times above, the German Nazi party was not a socialist party. Please stop POV spamming. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Common usage policy refers to naming of articles. The Swastika is also commonly associated with Nazism, yet the article discusses other uses. I think that National socialism should exist as a standalone article that describes the other national socialist movements throughout history. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When "national socialism" is discussed in English, the topic is almost always the NSDAP, and only rarely one of the other groups or movements that coincidentely happen to have "national socialist" in their names or describe themselves as "national socialist". Hence, the common usage policy dictates that "national socialism" redirect to "Nazism". Readers interested in other uses are directed to a disambiguation page in the hatnote. I don't see how a standalone article on "national socialism" would be at all useful, as the term means radically different things in different contexts. In short, there is no such thing as "national socialism" per se. Disambigaution seems the best solution to me, as does linking to that page through the hatnote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"as the term means radically different things in different contexts." - Can you source that? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source that explains conservatism, nazism, socialism and Communism are generally understood to belong to different political families. While the writings that inform your opinion divide ideology into "statist" and "individualist", mainstream thinking uses more than two categories. TFD (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing the subject is not an answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment. You have provided sources that describe conservatism, nazism, socialism and Communism as "national socialism". I have provided a source showing that these are seen by mainstream sources as distinct ideologies. TFD (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The comment about "changing topic" is prompted by the fact that nothing you are saying now is an answer to my question.

You have provided sources that describe conservatism, nazism, socialism and Communism as "national socialism". - Nobody has provided any such sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st in fact began the previous discussion thread with a reference to a 1912 article comparing Socialist parties in Germany and the United States.[18] If you had read the article you might have noticed that the author was using the adjective "national" to refer to the national organizations of these parties, as opposed to their local organizations, and was not implying that "national socialism" was an ideology. In fact both parties were organized at local (municpal), state and national (federal) levels. TFD (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good example of a source then NOT describing conservatism, nazism, socialism and Communism as "national socialism". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Arab nationalism

I removed a subsection of "Other ideologies" because it provides undue weight for a minor group. There were in fact numerous related organizations many of which were of far greater signicance. The subtitle is misleading because it implies that Arab nationalism is related to nazism. TFD (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism refers to the post 1919 German variant of National Socialism. There was also Czech and Austrian National socialism too. Might not a standalone article on National Socialism solve some of these issues? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's common usage policy indicates that it should remain a redirect to Nazism, as in discourse it is commonly referring to Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

you are creating a false distinction. TFD (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean?--R-41 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, I was replying to Martin. Rather than continue general discussions of opinions, I would like Martin to provide a source for his observations about taxonomy.) TFD (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See Marxism And National Identity: Socialism, Nationalism, And National Socialism During the French Fin De Siecle published by State University of New York Press[19]. The Fin De Siecle refers to the period around 1890. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are "New Democratic Parties" and parites called New Democracy that span the political spectrum. Yes they all claim to support democracy and yes they were all new when they adopted their names. But until someone explains how they form part of the same ideology as Bill Clinton's New Democracy they should not be included in that article and rightly belong on disambiguation pages. BTW, fin de siecle is French for "end of the century". TFD (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In the context of this book, fin de siecle refers to the period at the end of the 19th Century, i.e. around the 1890s. If an article such as Swastika can discuss the differing meanings of the symbol, mutatis mutandis, an article on National Socialism can also discuss the differing meanings of the term. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

See: WP:DISAMBIG: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles. For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to an element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things." TFD (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Arab nationalism" subsection very much did not belong to this article. It is an exceedingly different movement from Nazism. Just because there were some Arabs who had Nazi sympathies (mostly because Germany was the only power able to challenge British hegemony in the Middle East), that is not an excuse. Such connections, where significant, belong in articles on Arab affairs, not here. I'm inclined to delete the tiny "Indian national socialism" subsection for the same reason, anyone object? Zero^talk 01:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Indian group has nothing to do with Nazism and should be removed. TFD (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

All income should be dependent on service, instead of property and capital, Johann Karl Rodbertus, early advocate of National Socialism.

i suggest we create a "national socialism pre-nazi" section to handle the rapidly growing addition on new material on the topic. unless objection, i will add the paraphrase text above to the history section, or the new pre nazi section. Chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 9, 1901, page 543, W. & R. Chambers, Limited, 1901Darkstar1st (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to present original theories not previously published. I suggest you remove your comments while are disruptive and boring. TFD (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

the specific improvement i suggested was creating a pre-nazi section, i will put you down as a "no". Darkstar1st (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, please look at Wikipedia policy on common usage. Common usage of a term dictates how the term should be used. The term National Socialism commonly refers to Nazism of the Nazi Party. Thus it is a redirect to Nazism. If Rodbertus' views are related to the agenda of Nazism as practiced by the Nazi Party then it can be included. As I have said before, we are not going to include anything that happens to be called the same name "national socialism" in this article, unless it refers to Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are your sources that the National Socialism of the Nazi Party is different from the National Socialism of others? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are your sources that they are the same? TFD (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would that need a source? Do you need a source to say that The White House is the same house before and after 1919? Do you need a source to say that when you say "hamburger" you are not only referring to the food provided by McDonalds, but that Burger King and Wendies also count? Of course not. National socialism is national socialism. You claim that there are two distinct types of national socialism that has nothing to do with each other. So then, where is your sources? You are making the claim that needs proof here. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"National socialism is national socialism". That is obviously not true, the term has been used for all sorts of things in its recorded history. For example there are no obvious connection between the early 19th century usage of the term and the Hitler era usage, and I very much doubt you would be able to find a notable reliable source (textbook level) that would claim that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In this article on Nazism, the onus is on a person presenting pre-Nazi "national socialism" to demonstrate that it is connected to Nazism - by far the most notable form of "National Socialism", and the onus not the other way around. To add an example to this as OpenFuture did, suppose we want edit the article on McDonalds, which by Wikipedia common name policy currently refers to the modern fast food restaurant. Then someone starts putting in material on all kinds of minor largely unknown examples of organizations predating the fast food chain called McDonalds that were themselves called "McDonalds" into the history section. Would it be acceptable to deem that material as related to the modern usage?--R-41 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be trivial to show that they are not the same, by showing that McDonalds were founded a particular year. That's why my example was not McDonalds, but hamburgers. McDonalds would be NSDAP, which we have references on when it was founded. But this article is not about NSDAP, it is about an ideology. Ideologies does not have papers registrating their foundation. It is therefore up to you to show that the ideology called "national socialism" in 1918 is completely different from and has no relation to the ideology called "national socialism" in 1919, despite their obvious similarities. Just as you would need to show that McDonalds hamburgers have no relationship to any other hamburgers despite the fact that they all consist of a sandwich consisting of a cooked patty of ground meat placed inside a sliced bread roll. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The ideology of the authoritarian "National Socialism" associated with the Nazis had its origins with Johann Plenge who developed the idea during World War I. The NSDAP officially adopted National Socialism as an ideology in 1920. I added referenced material on Plenge to the ideological origins section of this article that shows the sources that you are requesting.--R-41 (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That does not show that his use of "national socialism" was completely unrelated to earlier usage of it. Which of course makes sense, since it wasn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't prove or disprove things about Nazism when Darkstar1st is providing sources that predate Nazism, there was no Hitler or Nazi Party then, so how can I possibly prove or disprove that they influenced Nazism unless there is referenced material that directly says they influenced Nazism?--R-41 (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What influenced Nazism is pretty well documented and really not the discussion here, btw, but if "national socialism" meant two different and unrelated concepts before and after WWI. You are doing that claim, and you need to source it. And you can't. So there. QED. Again. And again. And again. Why don't you just give up and admit that the concept "national socialism" before and after WWI were related, when it's blatantly obvious that they were. Stop soapboxing and OR:ing. National Socialism as a concept did not appear out of a vacuum in 1919. Give up. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Stop soapboxing and OR:ing. National Socialism as a concept did not appear out of a vacuum in 1919. Give up." Um, excuse me, are you accusing me of soapboxing and original research? First of all, I have presented evidence from scholars for the material I have added, such as on Plenge. Second, you have no right to tell a user to "give up". I can't accept that there is a singular monolithic and significant national socialism existed before World War I that can be automatically connected to the legacy of Nazism, especially since one user has shown that Lassalle who originally coined "national socialism" as a term was denounced by Nazi Dietrich Eckart who denounced Lassalle because he was a Jew among other things (reference Eckart's remarks on Lassalle here: [20]). I have been urging people to keep a cool head and work cooperatively on this, but if you continue to resort to irrational behaviour such as sarcastic remarks and false accusations, I will not tolerate this for a moment. I will report this for personal attacks made on false accusations if you do not immediately acknowledge and revoke this false accusation and aggressive attitude.--R-41 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My attitude is not aggressive, I'm just tired of repeating myself when I ask for sources that support your standpoint. Your illogical original research above is not a source. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not true, I told you to check the article's Ideological origins section on the referenced information on Johann Plenge that I added. You did not listen to what I said have not examined those sources that are in the article. Now I am going to give you the sources so there can be no excuse for accusing me for original research:

• Martin Kitchen. A history of modern Germany, 1800-2000. Malden, Massaschussetts, USA; Oxford, England, UK; Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing, Inc., 2006. Pp. 205. - Describes Plenge's "Ideas of 1914", contending that 1914 was the date that National Socialism was born, as well as denouncing the "Ideas of 1789" - the French Revolution, and declaring that German National Socialist ideals include duty, discipline, law and order. Plenge's National Socialism advocated the unity of "racial comrades".
• Bernd-Rüdiger Hüppauf. War, violence, and the modern condition. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1997. Pp. 92. - Describes Plenge's Spirit of 1914 ideas and his promotion of a "People's League of National Socialism" - a form of state socialism that rejected the "idea of boundless freedom".
• Thomas Rohkrämer. "A single communal faith?: the German Right from Conservatism to National Socialism", Monographs in German History. Volume 20. Berghahn Books, 2007. Pp. 130. - Shows that Plenge advocated an authoritarian rational ruling elite to develop National Socialism through a hierarchical technocratic state.

--R-41 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That Plenge was important is not the issue, the issue is if NS post WWI is completely unrelated to NS before WWI. None of your sources support this. Also, please stop repeating the same discussion and the same arguments in three places. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(out) Dietrich Eckart, said that Ferdinand Lassalle, whose views were sometimes described as "national socialism", was part of the Jewish capitalist-socialist conspiracy to enslave Germans through international loan capital. (Nazi ideology before 1933) [21] It hardly seems that they would pay tribute to Lassalle in naming their party after a "Jewish" ideology. In fact there is no mention at all in the book of your theory that there is a connection. TFD (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

National Socialism wasn't created out of a vacuum in 1919, it was a synthesis of many ideologies. This source illustrates a genealogy[22]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is partly true. It was also not created out of a monolithic, single national socialism that existed for centuries as some users seem to be implying. The events of World War I certainly created an atmosphere for it to flourish--R-41 (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think seem to be implying that. Otherwise you are of course completely correct. And that should reasonably settle the dispute. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a writer on the ultra-right fringe. He blames Protestantism, science and democracy for the evils of the world, including Nazism. You cannot add his views to the article, and we should not be promoting anti-scientific, anti-Protestant, and-democratic views. TFD (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where a reliable source presents an opinion, we certainly can and ought include such ascribed opinions. The person you name is not categorized as "ultra-right" and "fringe" that I have found - but you know that he is? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin presented this opinion in order to support a statement of fact not a statement of opinion. Thank you for explaining that it is an opinion. You should read sometime the sources that your present. The writer (the book is published by the Mises Institute) has some very interesting opinions, and places the Fuehrer in the democratic and republican tradition. Curiously he does not mention Lassalle in the book and does not see Lassallian socialism as an influence on Hitler. TFD (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 9, 1901

is there any specific objection and policy preventing the use of material from the encyclopedia? if not i will start adding material Darkstar1st (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

An article written in 1901 would be an unacceptable source for something that occurred decades later. TFD (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's a perfectly good source for what happened in the 19th century. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Using a 1901 tertiary source is absurd. Instead of searching to the ends of the earth to find books that support what you want to appear in the article, just get respected current books about the subject and reflect what they say. It makes the task easier, and avoids fruitless discussions like this one. TFD (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

since no policy has been stated preventing the addition of this source, i will add the material in 24 hours. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The growth of national socialism in Germany, and the tendency toward national socialism in America in 1912

above paraphrased. I would like to add some material from this source unless there be objection: German Municipal Socialism as Illustrated by Ulm, by Karl Frederick Geiser, Professor of Political Science at Oberlin College, National municipal review, Vol 1, page 355, National Municipal League, 1912. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to present original theories not previously published. I suggest you remove your comments while are disruptive and boring. TFD (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

not much has been mentioned about national socialism before 1919 in Germany or the USA, these are not theories, but facts supported by rs. do you have a objection to the source? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to find a source that says supports your original theories, otherwise you are wasting other peoples' time and being disruptive. TFD (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

i am not presenting a theory, rather a RS and would like to note the text contained within. do you have a specific challenge to the above source? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please present a source that discusses National Socialism (the ideology of the Nazi Party) that mentions the primary source that you have found. Then we can determine whether this connection has any credibility and whether it should be added. If no one has made the connection that you have then I suggest you publish an article explaining the results of your original research and we can determine the degree of acceptance your thinking and reasoning has on informed readers. TFD (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

rs are not required to be mentioned in other sources. i am simply presenting material which used the word, it is you who must prove the source is not reliable, or not relevant. National Socialism may or may not have been the ideology of the nazi party, this article and many of the editors here suggest nazi were not socialist at all. However, whether nazis were national socialist is immaterial to the inclusion of this source which predates the nazi party. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

National socialism is not a word, it is two words. If you want to write an article about how the two words have been joined in the past then write an article, get it published and get back to us. TFD (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, TFD, the requirement of sources apply to you to. Your claims are all OR, and can not go into the article unless you support them. The claim that "national socialism" before and after 1919 meant completely different things that has no relation to each other needs to be sourced. Do you have such a source? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see TFD is not proposing a change to the article, Darkstar1st is; that that proposed change is clearly original research and not appropriate without proper sourcing. --Snowded ^TALK 09:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is a change or not is quite irrelevant isn't it? Where are the sources that the National Socialism of the Nazi party is separate from other ideologies also called National Socialism? This is what is claimed here, and this is what TFD, R-41 and others use as a basis for what they want the article to say. So that needs to be supported by source. Where are these sources? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Very relevant, if someone is proposing to make a chancechange they have to back it up with sources. Until they do there is no obligation on other editors to do anything but request those sources. --Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You are now claiming that fore example removing unsourced content requires a source. That is of course utter nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No he is claiming that adding content requires a source. TFD (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, he isn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is, and its obvious from what he wrote. For the benefit of the pedantic I have corrected the typo. --Snowded ^TALK 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the word clearly was change, and it remains so after the typo fix. "Change" does not mean "add". --OpenFuture (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is actually discussing Socialist Parties organized on a national level and makes no claim that there is an ideology called "national socialism" It points out that the Socialists organized at a local level as well.[23] TFD (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Karl Frederick Geiser, Professor of Political Science at Oberlin College, reliable source or not?

any specific objections? if so please give the policy and how it applies here. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)