Brief on types of socialism

Brief on types of socialism

Photo: York, England postcard

My political leanings, moderate conservative, libertarian.

On CNN today I watched a brief discussion on the issue of Nazism and if it can be defined as under the political umbrella of fascism or socialism.

When I was a child and my parents were in the Amway business, one of the American, Diamond Direct Distributors and a considerable intellectual and conservative (that was a Christian missionary, last time we had contact), named Hank Gilewicz told me (paraphrased) in regards to conservatives types in Canada and the United States and their fears of socialism:

'There are different types of socialism.'

In other words, there are various moderate to radical forms of socialism. Socialism should not necessarily be equated with radical socialism. 

All forms of socialism as political ideologies are not all, or near identical. Theoretically and practically, there are forms of democratic socialism and also forms of non-democratic socialism.

Nazism

THE CONCORD DESK ENCYCLOPEDIA (1982) New York, Concord Reference Books, Inc, Time.

Cited

Nazism or National Socialism, the creed of the National Socialist Workers' Party (Nazi Party) led by Adolf Hitler from 1921 to 1945.(858). The entry documents that the movement was rooted in nationalism, racism (especially anti-Semitism), authoritarianism and militarism. (858). 

Key concepts within this worldview were rearmament (to counter the post World War I: Treaty of Versailles, my add). The text calls it 'severe terms' (858). Nazism also emphasized territorial expansion for lebensraum (German) which is living space. (858). This also included the racial and racist concept of a master race. The text calls it herrenrasse (German).

The text states of Adolf Hitler that in 1933-34 the Nazi Party 'won more than one-third of seats in the German parliament (Reichstag).' (858). Hitler became chancellor by 1933. (858).

Soon any semblance of democracy ended as in 1933-34, Hitler established a Nazi dictatorship. (858).

Here Nazi Germany began its persecution, and the interning and murder of  political opponents, and/or more often, simply those deemed as non-Aryan. This included 'Jews', 'other non-Aryans', those in labor unions and of other political parties. (858). 

I am not a political scientist, but am a theologian of the Reformed tradition and a philosopher of religion; but at this point, without denying the form of socialism that makes up its name, Nazism was certainly more authoritarian or fascist, and less so, socialist. Certainly not democratic socialist. Millions of Jews primarily were murdered and executed in concentration camps (858) as were others deemed enemies of the Third Reich. Correctly at the end of their article the text, it cites fascism as being a related entry. (858).

Within its fascism entry, it documents that fascism is 'strictly, the political social system of Italy under Mussolini 1922-1945.' (455). From fasces in Italian (455). A bundle of wood with a projecting axe blade (my add). Britannia: Fasces

This text, surprisingly, in my opinion, does not directly mention Nazism as being under the umbrella of fascism, perhaps staying with the 'strict' definition. It does note that fascism spread to Austria in 1933, and Austria was incorporated in Germany in 1938. (455). The encyclopedia does provide that fascism has 'close ties with Nazism' (455), due to nationalism and militarism (455).

The text also states:

"Fascist has become a term of abuse for many because of the ugly aspects of fascism, and is often used of anyone whose views are right wing.' (455).

Agreed. Attempts at objectivity should mean that more careful use of terms is sought within political arenas. The same can be stated for those that tag the left wing as communist or Marxist, when those being tagged, deny that they are that far to the left, politically.

Simon Blackburn is his philosophy dictionary places (post-World War I, my add) movements in Italy, Germany and Spain as 'the loose amalgam of aspirations and influences crystallized' (136). In other words, Nazism Germany and its Nazism is under the political and philosophical umbrella of fascism. 

So it seems to me that Nazism could be placed under the umbrellas of authoritarianism, fascism and its own version of socialism, based on its own definition within its name. Again heeding the word from my childhood source, on types of socialism. Not democratic socialism. At the same time, I write this not being primarily guided by certain modern, western, political correctness and political considerations which leads to terms of abuse as the Concord Desk Encyclopedia noted.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

THE CONCORD DESK ENCYCLOPEDIA (1982) New York, Concord Reference Books, Inc, Time.

---

The Washington Post: The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists: By Ronald J. Granieri 

Citations in italics

Feb. 5, 2020 at 3:00 a.m. PST'

Did you know that “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist”? That means that Hitler and his henchmen were all socialists. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist, too. That means Bernie Sanders and his supporters are the same as Nazis … doesn’t it?

In agreement with the author from the Washington Post...No.

There is only one problem: This argument is untrue. Although the Nazis did pursue a level of government intervention in the economy that would shock doctrinaire free marketeers, their “socialism” was at best a secondary element in their appeal. Indeed, most supporters of Nazism embraced the party precisely because they saw it as an enemy of and an alternative to the political left.

A secondary element in their appeal, seems a reasonable comment. Yet, it was in their name. Again, a type of socialism. 

The Nazi regime had little to do with socialism, despite it being prominently included in the name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The NSDAP, from Hitler on down, struggled with the political implications of having socialism in the party name. Some early Nazi leaders, such as Gregor and Otto Strasser, appealed to working-class resentments, hoping to wean German workers away from their attachment to existing socialist and communist parties.

The Nazi Party sought its own authoritarian form of government. Not communist authoritarianism, nor any form of democratic socialism. Nazism was not a form of western democratic socialism. 

National Socialism preserved private property, while also putting the entire resources of society at the service of an expansionist and racist national vision, which included the conquest and murderous subjugation of other peoples. It makes no sense to think that the sole, or even the primary, negative aspect of this regime was the fact that it used state power to allocate financial resources. It makes as little sense to suggest that using state power to allocate some financial resources today will automatically result in the same dire consequences.

Agreed. Using the state to assist with certain financial resources within a democratic country, will not necessarily result in a form of authoritarianism. But, as does communism, Nazism did use power to significantly allocate control over financial resources.

However, I reason that democratic socialism and/or liberalism can erode, for example, the freedoms of those with non-politically correct views, that do not agree in the public sphere (religious views on morality, for example). I suppose that any form of democratic government can erode freedoms within democracy. 

For balance, a conservative democracy that has some authoritarian aspects (religious, morality laws for example) may be more likely to erode some freedoms of the non-compliant, than a conservative democracy that is more so libertarian, as example.

Saturday, June 13, 2020: Quotes: We don't return evil with evil/There are different types of socialism