User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive March 2004 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I am not aware of things being held or used in common by Nazism to any particular extent. I suppose we could talk about the Nazis in terms of the idea of war socialism, since much of their central planning was ultimately military planning, and this is a well-established idea, used to discuss, for instance, Germany's war economy during World War I. But war socialism, much like national socialism and Austrian Christian Socialism, is not quite socialism. I would agree with you that socialism, like most political terms, has a rather slippery meaning. It is hard to come up with a definition of socialism that includes all mainstream socialist movements and excludes everything else. Word meanings drift, and so forth. Which is why I think that ultimately a historical understanding of things like socialism (and fascism) is necessary. In the 19th century, socialism meant a specific ideology. One aimed at flattening the social pyramid. The last shall be first, and that kind of thing. This ideology developed over the course of that century, and into the next one, into a bewildering variety of different political movements, as different from one another as the British Labour Party and Leninist Communism (with much in between, and off in sidelines, and so forth). All of these acknowledged their debt to the socialist ideas of the 19th century. Italian Fascism is an odd case. It was, indisputably, founded by a former leader of the Socialist Party of Italy. Many of its ideas on organization, and so forth, were derived from those of socialism. But, on the other hand, many of the basic principles derived from the 19th century socialist tradition were abandoned - class struggle, egalitarianism [and no, egalitarianism was absolutely not a universal idea espoused by everyone], democracy [even Stalinists supported democracy in theory - Fascists did not] - while at the same time coming into quite close alliance with the very forces which the socialist movement had always opposed - crown, church, traditional elites. It also advocated an ultra-nationalistic and social darwinistic message that was at direct odds with the socialist tradition. So, I think the question of whether Italian Fascism can be considered a socialist movement is probably worth discussing, although I think the discontinuities are strong enough that it can be excluded. Nazism, while sharing all of the elements of Fascism that would incline one not to put Fascism in the category of socialism, has much less connection to the socialist tradition, if it has any at all. Nazism emerged out of the Völkisch anti-semitic movements of the late 19th century - that is to say, from the extreme right wing fringe of German politics. So far as I am aware, no major National Socialist leaders emerged from an actual socialist tradition. Their discussion of the idea of National Socialism, while occasionally playing up the whole "socialism" thing, was mostly focused around the "national" aspect, and was really a propaganda tool to attack the actual socialist parties. By no means did Nazism arise out of the 19th century socialist tradition. john 09:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could you quit making sections on my talk page, please? john 20:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll just respond to you here then. Sam Spade 21:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's fine. But if you want to make a section for your own comments on my talk page, that's fine. I just don't like that you seem to be actively putting earlier discussion in which you may or may not have actually participated into sections. It's my talk page, to maintain as I see fit. john 21:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I section off as much as I can when I edit talk pages. On the other hand its your talk page, and you can do as you like. Sorry if you didn't like something I did, to be honest I don't understand exactly what bothered you, but I will avoid refactoring your talk page if at all possible. Feel free to make any changes you like, or delete what I wrote, or whatever you feel needs done, and I apologize for any confusion or upset. Sam Spade 21:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


SamSpade, Could you please explain what is inaccurate in the sentence " The Nazi ideology contained nothing original and the term was borrowed from older 19th century sources." I read this in a very good biography by Ian Kershaw about Hitler. On second thoughts, it may have been from the beginning of 20 centrury as well but it was certainly not original in any respect. What is inaccurate in the following sentence? "The Nazis were however the first to put this belief into practice in Europe. " The idea had already been put in to practice by the colonial powers in africa and Asia. This was one of the sources of inspiration for Hitler. Thanks in advance Andries 18:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hinduims and Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

Sam Spade, I am the main author of the Sathya Sai Baba article and I would be happy if your had comments on that article. Andries 20:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Socialism[edit]

"No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State"

"Fascism will have nothing to do with universal embraces; as a member of the community of nations it looks other peoples straight in the eyes; it is vigilant and on its guard; it follows others in all their manifestations and notes any changes in their interests; and it does not allow itself to be deceived by mutable and fallacious appearances.

Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else.

That the vicissitudes of economic life - discoveries of raw materials, new technical processes, and scientific inventions - have their importance, no one denies; but that they suffice to explain human history to the exclusion of other factors is absurd. Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive - remote or immediate - is at work. Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration-old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort. Fascism denies the materialistic conception of happiness as a possibility, and abandons it to the economists of the mid-eighteenth century. This means that Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple."


Sounds to me like you're somewhere between being a left-liberal and a social democrat. 21:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


This is certainly verbose. ugen64 20:10, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
Sam, why did you respond to me as if I gave you that quoted passage? That was IP :) ugen64 23:02, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


Sam, from your recent comment on Ugen64's talk page I would have firmly pegged you as a libertarian. Welcome, I think. Paul Beardsell 03:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, following clarification, you are not 100% libertarian. Your views are tempered with a little self-doubt which must be healthy in an authoritarian! :-) Paul Beardsell 08:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Are you michael, 142, or the guy who put gum in my hair in 3rd grade? Im gonna tell the cabal about you and the witchhunt will have your soul! Lirath Q. Pynnor