[This is Chapter 28 of Murphey's book Socialist Thought.]

 

28

DEFINITIONS OF "SOCIALISM"

In terms of strict logical priority, it would have made sense to define the word "socialism" at the beginning of this book.  I deliberately left the matter of definition to the end, however, so that the book itself will have demonstrated the rich complexity of usages.

As we approach the matter now, it is significant that we are not dealing with a term of classical usage.  There is no time-honored definition that comes down from the Greeks, even though socialist paradigms were present within the thinking of the Greeks.  The word "socialist" seems to have been used first during the 1830s, just a century and a half ago.  Vetterli and Fort say that “in 1834, anti-Semite socialist Pierre Leroux first coined the word ‘socialism.’”  Thomas Kirkup differs, but stays within the same period: "The word 'socialism' appears to have been first used in The Poor Man's Guardian in 1833.  In 1835, a society . . . was founded under the auspices of Robert Owen; and the words socialist and socialism became current during the discussions that arose in connection with it.”2

The terms "Left" and "Right" go back only a bit farther.  We can well imagine how ill-devised they are as ways to describe all modern ideology, being based as they are on nothing more sophisticated than the seating arrangements within the assembly during the beginning phase of the French Revolution and on the seating within later European legislative assemblies.  David Caute relates that "the 'radicals' sit on the left side of the legislative chamber, as viewed from the president's chair, and the conservatives the right side.”3   With regard to the seating during the French Revolution, Caute says that "it was during the debates on the royal veto that the Assembly first divided into a Right, Centre and Left, representing respectively the demand for an absolute royal veto, a suspensive veto, and no veto at all."

During the intervening two hundred years, "Left" has for the most part been synonymous with socialism and "Right" with anything else, whatever it may be in a given context.  "Left" is considered a favorable label by most socialists, who have accordingly sought the designation.  For this reason, when serious divisions have occurred within socialist thought, those who have been in the strongest position within world intellectual culture to retain the title of "Leftist" have done so and have tagged their opponents as "Rightists."   The most conspicuous examples of this have been with Hitler's national socialism and Mussolini's fascism, both of which were labelled "Rightist" even though for several reasons they should be considered types of socialist thought.  There have even been references to "rightwing Communists" in Czechoslovakia who crushed Dubcek's liberal regime.  The result is that all of this terminology must be understood contextually and with an eye to the nuances of semantic development within the ideological struggle that is forever going on.  In any particular society at a given time a "Rightist" may be anyone ranging from a monarchist to an army colonel to a religious fanatic to a proponent of a classical liberal individualistic society.   At the same time, a "Leftist" may be a member of the local Soviet-bloc Communist Party, or of some underground terrorist organization, or nothing more threatening than a peaceable reformer advocating a watered-down version of democratic socialism.   Readers must allow themselves to flow with the usage, realizing that it is very much a semantic jumble.

In this chapter we will grapple with the definition of the word "socialism."   Here are some things we will not  be doing: We will not, certainly, be seeking a definition for an object of clearly delineated facticity.  It will make a lot of difference that the subject-matter of what we are trying to define is amorphous, spread-out, indeterminate, graduated into infinite shades and shapes.

Also, we won't be starting fresh.  The term comes to us by now with an extensive and varied usage.  There are times when it is useful for a thinker to assign a meaning to a term as a matter of ex cathedra intellectual convention.  He stipulates that for the purposes of his theoretical system the word means a certain thing.  But this isn't such a time; I have no need for an esoteric instrumental definition within my own theories.   Rather, I see value in adopting a definition that will be in line with the already-existing usages, even though it may work to clarify them.   This acknowledges the fact that our language does need broad generic terms to facilitate our communication of ideas.

We cannot expect, however, that the past usages of "socialism" will tell us definitively the meaning that we should choose.  Those usages are immensely varied and internally contradictory.   It is helpful to think of the history of socialist thought by way of an analogy: It is like a vast river system crossing a plain, but a river composed not just of a single channel but of many separate and interlaced channels, and with a major part of the flow consisting of underground water.  The analogy is enhanced if we add that the liquid crossing the plain is not all homogeneous: some is pure water, some muddy, some alkaline, some mixed with bubbles of natural gas and sulphur.

Anyone wanting to say just what part of this is the "river" will have all sorts of decisions to make about what to include and what to exclude.   Should just the main channel, if it can be identified, be considered the river?  Or the entire flow?   Or what portions, determined by what criteria?   The subject-matter itself doesn't provide answers to these questions.  The definition will necessarily reflect the intellectual purposes of the person doing the defining.  This will certainly be true with regard to any definition of “socialism.”

For reasons that I am about to explain, I will opt for a definition that is quite broad.  My purpose will be to be inclusive rather than exclusive.   I think that this will be better than a more sectarian definition that places the generic crown of “socialism” upon the head of just one of the several possibilities.   I have two principal reasons for deciding to define the term in this way:

The first is that past usages have in fact applied the term, at least when unadorned by an adjective and a hyphen, in a vast generic sense, even though this has flown in the face of the frequent desire by particular socialists to corner the label for themselves.

The second is that a broad definition can help avoid some significant intellectual errors that are facilitated by narrower definitions.  One of the intellectual enormities of the twentieth century has been the extent to which the world intellectual community has tended to brush aside the warnings and danger signals about socialism by adopting a convenient semantic.  This semantic has excluded regimes and movements that, although possessing many of the characteristics generally associated with socialism, have been offensive.   An example of this has been the desire by some authors to label Stalinism as “state capitalism,” which is an incredible inversion that can only obscure the socialist's ability to learn from the Stalinist horror.   I have already mentioned the omission of Hitler's national socialism and Mussolini's fascism from most socialist histories and anthologies.   Such exclusions are a seriously self-deluding indulgence.  They allow socialists to avoid coming to grips with the dangers inherent in collectivism. 

Other exclusions are sometimes made from the scope of the word "socialism" because of dissimulation by people who find it desirable to eschew the “socialist label” even though they hold a profoundly socialist view of the world.  This avoidance of the label has been an important part of modern American liberalism.   There, a social democratic worldview (which at time has shown claws that belie such a label) has been combined with a less-than-candid refusal to admit to a "socialist" affinity.  This must be understood tactically, since in American society the term "socialist" has for the most part been pejorative rather than favorable.  There has been a strong motive to mask over the American counterpart of the European social democratic movement.   It is all more complex than this suggests, of course, and I don't mean to suggest that it is perfectly clear that twentieth century American liberalism should be classified as "socialist"; but I do find that it will be worthwhile to define "socialism" inclusively enough that the whole question is not obviated.

A broad definition necessarily rejects alternative meanings that focus selectively on some characteristics to the exclusion of others.  We can understand how it is that a Christian, for example, who sincerely believes that he has come to embrace revealed Truth will perhaps insist that his doctrines constitute "Christianity" as properly defined, and that the many competing doctrines are not truly Christian.  The same applies to socialists.  Just the same, although we can understand this point of view, we don't have to share it.  Someone like myself who is not persuaded that one "true version" has a rightful claim will have no reason to base a definition on one type rather than on the others.

If I were tempted to do this, I would be inclined to base a definition upon the century-long experience of the German Social Democratic Party, since that Party has been a main trunkline.  The resulting definition would be quite broad, though, since German social democracy has taken many twists and turns over all those years.  My reluctance to base a definition upon even the rich heritage of that party is a result of the concerns I have mentioned: here, the definition, though necessarily very broad, would exclude the various antagonists of the Social Democrats - e.g., the German Historical School, Bismarck's state socialism, Nazism, Fascism and (arguably) Soviet-style Communism, among several others.  Instead of being helpful, such exclusions would have an obscurantist effect.

To arrive at a broadly inclusive definition, I will survey briefly the main characteristics of what the various usages refer to as socialist thought.   I will consider characteristics that they all have in common to be defining.  Those about which major schools of socialists have disagreed, however, will not be considered definitional.  After we have reviewed the commonly held characteristics and then the points of difference, I will be prepared to say that viewpoints and political-economic structures that embrace, in the main, the common characteristics are “socialist.”   A key limitation in what I have just said, of course, appears in the words "in the main."   Judgments about degree are inevitable, and there is nothing in what I will be doing that will serve as an intellectual preemptive strike to eliminate disputes about gradation.   In my opinion, we shouldn't mask the issues raised by variety and gradation by what we do definitionally.

Common characteristics (although held in varying degrees) are:

. Group oriented.   The purist concept, since it goes back to include Greek socialist thought and to the utopias offered prior to the modern era, is the idea of pooling, of common effort and reward, of group rather than individuated processes.  Here, the emphasis is on the group, often an in-group or tribal identification and often with a tendency toward insularity against outside or centrifugal forces.   Because of the group orientation, the values that are advocated tend toward what is mutually-supportive and non-competitive.  The economic emphasis is usually on distribution, which is perceived as dividing a fixed pie, rather than on production, at least while socialism is out of power and making its critique of capitalism.   Production necessarily becomes a higher priority for an existing socialist state, which must establish the pie itself.

. Anti-liberal.  Various other characteristics typify socialist thought within the past century and a half and are so identified with it that they ought to be added, even though they are in large measure historically rooted in the modern alienation of the intellectual from the predominant middle class commercial society.   The first of these is the persistent opposition to liberalism in its classical sense.   When Sombart moved during his long lifetime from being a member of the German Historical School to Marxism and then to Nazism, the common thread was his antipathy to the bourgeoisie and to individualistic liberalism.   Although this is a negative factor, it is very important – perhaps the most important one for the modern Left.   A major portion of modern socialist thought relates to what socialists are against rather than to what they are for.   The American New Left, for example, hardly offered a description of what it wanted as a social-political model but was intense in its anger toward existing values and institutions.  This anti-liberal characteristic has many ramifications within socialist thought: either a rejection of or critical yearning to transcend the Industrial Revolution; opposition to a market economy as the primary allocator of resources and distributor of income; antagonism toward the wage-relation between employees and a private enterprise; and a negative critique of capitalism in all its aspects.

. Appeal to the disaffected.  A fundamental characteristic of modern socialism has been the seeking of an alliance by the intellectual with the “masses” or any unassimilated "have-not" group against the predominant culture.  This has led, in turn, to great theoretical emphasis upon perspectives of entrapment and exploitation.  The alliance demands that the ideology appeal "democratically" to the perceived interests of the "masses," even though this has often been approached through totalitarian methods by which a party or a state is thought to become the vehicle for mass aspirations.  The resulting ideology must also contain a strong egalitarian component and show sensitivity to the problems of the have-nots.  Totalitarian socialisms present themselves as the only effective way to serve these values, since they see other socialisms as weak and ineffectual and liberal society as a pretentious sham.

. Elitist.  At the very same time, the dynamic of alienation and alliance involves a powerful, if often implicit, elitism.  Little humility is entertained about the ability of the leaders or of the intellectual culture to lead the way rationalistically, but the "masses" are for their part seen as the products of determinism.  Mankind becomes inert matter that is subject to central direction or other transformation in a process of "remaking mankind."   This remolding often involves a transcendent secular-religious vision, a utopian yearning to go beyond the mundane features of ordinary life.

. Emphasis on change.   Because historically socialism has been "on the outside looking in," its thinking has been caused to dwell on the desirability and methods of social change.

Characteristics that are not definitional because major socialist schools have differed on them are:

 

. Class struggle versus nationalism.   Marxists insist that to be socialist an ideology must be predicated upon class struggle, championing the proletariat (or sometimes the peasantry) rather than some  

other sort of "mass" interest such as that of race or nation.   This was the principal difference between Mussolini's "socialist" and "fascist" periods.  In the second, he broadened his appeal beyond the proletariat to the "nation as a whole."   An outsider, however, will see little reason to give weight to this Marxist-versus-national socialist distinction.  We know that socialists have at one time or another sought an alliance with any sort of disaffected group.  Mussolini was heavily clothed by socialist characteristics even while he led fascism: he remained intensely anti-liberal; he appealed demagogically to dissatisfied "masses"; he put in place a collectivist economy in the form of his corporative state; and he yearned for moral, existential transcendence.

 

. Centralization versus decentralization.  Some socialists have wanted a centralized economic and political system in line with the public's usual image of socialism.  But many who are by consensus indisputably "socialists" have detested “state socialism” and have wanted decentralization, even anarchy.   It is accordingly ill-advised to define socialism as "the nationalization of industry," as is so often done.   Such a definition ex-communicates such figures as Proudhon and Fourier, and it fails to give due weight to developments within European democratic socialism as represented by the Frankfurt Resolution and the Bad Godesberg program.

 

. Pacifism versus militarism.   Some are pacifists, others militarists.  This is an immense difference, but we have seen that it is entirely possible to hold either position while still being collectivist, anti-liberal, etc.   Sombart recognized this when he said (albeit favorably to the militaristic side) that there are "Heroic Socialisms" and "Trader Socialisms."   Some socialism seeks the effeminization of mankind, while other types would see that as contemptible.

 

. Rationalism versus anti-rationalism.   Some are rationalists, others anti-rational; some favor empirico-mathematical science, others detest it; some look upon modern technology favorably, while others fear it; and some welcome urban culture, while others yearn for a return to pastoral values.   Socialist thought has sprung just as readily from the Romantic reaction against modernity as it has from the technocratic intellectualism that has been so central a part of modernity.

 

. Open versus closed society.   Some socialists are committed to democracy and "civil liberties" (although in so saying I don't want to negate the concern that I and other opponents of socialism feel over the democratic socialists' lack of sensitivity to the dangers inherent in any kind of collectivism).  Others support a closed society.   C. A. E. Crosland identifies socialism with “a passionate belief in liberty and democracy.”4   This may be acceptable with regard to democratic socialism, but it certainly doesn't describe socialism in general.   It is no doubt important for us to understand empathetically that totalitarians justify their closed society as designed ultimately to serve best the f ulfillment of the human personality, but someone who disagrees sharply with their perspective will hardly want to say that a totalitarian stands in favor of "liberty and democracy."  To make the support of liberty and democracy a defining characteristic of socialism would be to deprive those terms, however broad, of any content.

 

 

My preferred definition:  In effect, I have already stated my definition, which is that any viewpoint or condition of society is "socialist" that, in the main, embraces the characteristics that are held in common: a group orientation, anti-liberalism, elitism, an appeal to the disaffected, and an emphasis on change.

 

 

A critique of some suggested definitions:  Socialist authors have often given their own definitions of "socialism."   Here are some comments on meanings that have been suggested:

. "A passion for equality."  Arthur Lewis says that "a passion for equality is the one thing that links all socialists; on all others they are divided.”5   Fried and Sanders second this when they observe that "there is today an immense variety of socialisms, but what they all have in common is their attachment to the ideal of social equality."6    (The "equality" they are referring to must be understood to connote "equality of condition," since “equality under the law” is one of the mainstays of the classical liberal ideology that underlies capitalism.)

This definition pretty well hits the mark; it is broad and inclusive, and (when fully considered) presupposes each of the other common characteristics that I have proposed.   Its weakness lies in having "boiled things down" so much that it runs the risk of not articulating the common characteristics adequately.

. "Socialism is the nationalization of industry."   Crosland quotes Marx as having defined socialism as “the nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.”7   Norman Thomas has cited, but not supported, a definition that speaks of "a highly collective economy with a great deal of government planning and control, sweetened by much welfare legislation.”8   Eric Goldman, a contemporary American liberal, writes that "the socialist has sought a society in which the principal means of production would be owned and operated by the state."9

This is probably the most frequent mistake in defining "socialism."   Thomas is moved to refer to it, therefore, as "vulgar socialism."   His criticism is that the definition overlooks essential aspirations that go beyond political and economic forms; he speaks of "a fraternal society of free men, managing for their common good the natural resources and the marvelous tools at their command."   For similar reasons, Michael Harrington argues that "the nationalization of industry is a technique of socialism, not its definition. "10

I agree with the criticisms.   It is a definition that brushes aside the many calls within the history of socialist thought for decentralization.   It ignores the element of transcendence and fraternalism.  And it shows no awareness of the direct disavowals of nationalization that have occurred within European socialism since World War II.

. "Socialism is a planned economy.”   Leslie Derfler quotes Rudolf Hilferding's "assessment that an economy directed by a democratic government amounted to socialism."11   Werner Sombart wrote that "the 'leader-principle' . . . leads directly to a planned economy, that is, to Socialis:m.”12

Although this is more inclusive than the preceding definition, it still isn't broad enough to pick up Proudhon and Fourier.  We also would hardly consider economic planning tantamount to "socialism" if it were done on behalf of traditional conservatism in service to a society that would be profoundly hierarchical.

. "Socialism is a process, an aspiration for improvement, nothing more or less."   Proudon foolishly defined socialism as "every aspiration towards the amelioration of society."13   This is so all-inclusive that it would include every ideology, unless we were ungraciously to deny the sincerity and good-will of the proponents of such philosophies as Burkean Conservatism and Classical Liberalism.

Other socialists have from time to time given definitions that relate to a "process" or to "ends" rather than to economic and political models.   Ralph Miliband writes that "socialism is not a steady state but a dynamic process; and there are no final points of arrival . . . What it mainly involves is a manifold class struggle."14   In saying this, he shows his awareness of the diversity of models and of methods.   This is essential for any definition to be inclusive enough to serve as the broadest generic category.   His reference to "class struggle," though, imposes a serious limitation that confines the meaning to socialist doctrines that have emerged from Left Hegelianism.   Although this is often done by Marxists, to whom class struggle is basic, there is no reason for a non-Marxist to agree with it.

 

Hitler's “national socialism”: Was it "socialist"?   I have already indicated why I consider Mussolini's fascism to have been "socialist."   Before we conclude our discussion of definitional nuances, we need to consider whether German “national socialism” should fairly be included within "socialism."

Werner Sombart said it should be.   He wrote in 1937 that "the German national movement" was host to several conflicting ideas, but that to be accepted each had to be "nationalistic" and "it must also be socialistic."15   Even though he had been a Marxist himself, he said that "all of those definitions of Socialism which would restrict it to the emancipation of the proletariat, as Marxism would, are too narrow.   We shall see that there is a real Socialism which has nothing whatever to do with the modern proletariat . . . (T)he concept of Socialism goes beyond economics and concerns itself with the order of all social relations."

The overwhelming insistence by socialists who are outside Nazism or Fascism, however, has been that these ideologies are not socialist.   The Table of Contents of Fried and Sanders' anthology, for example, does not contain an entry dealing with national socialism, and most socialist histories reflect the same ostracism.   Laslett speaks of the Marxist interpretation of fascism: "fascism was the 'last stage' of monopoly capitalism."16   Vetterli and Fort quote Professor Hook's reference to the "Leninist theory . . . that Fascism is the last phase of finance capitalism."   Hook says that "this has been the dogma of all Leninist schools - Trotsky, Dutt, Guerin, etc.”17   Robert Heilbroner voiced this perspective when he spoke of "the more war-like capitalisms, specifically prewar Germany or Japan."   This Marxist viewpoint has become so ubiquitous that we even find it in the shallow "business and society" literature within the United States: George Steiner writes about "Germany and Italy prior to World War II" and then says that "business domination of government can lead to an authoritarian government which eventually dominates business."19

This is a definition of national socialism as constituting the form that the militant bourgeoisie takes when that class is in extremis.   Such a definition is consistent with the Marxists' sharp dichotomizing of the world into two opposing classes, with the Communists championing the proletariat and everyone else, by definition, serving bourgeois class interests.   It was on this basis that during their ideologically most outspoken phase Communists denounced even democratic socialists as "social fascists."  It is an example of the simplistic attitude "if you aren't with us, you're against us."

Some socialists argue that national socialism wasn't "socialist" for other reasons than class struggle.  It is not, to them, sufficiently egalitarian or democratic or sensitive to the subtleties of the work relation.

I have from time to time expressed my own conclusion that Nazism should properly be considered "socialist."   One reason for my having opted for a broadly generic definition of socialism was precisely to include it, since I think that socialists specifically and the world community in general should face up to the realities of the dangers inherent in all collectivism.  (Those dangers have been quite apparent from the history of Marxist-Leninism in several countries, but an intellectual double standard has steadfastly refused to see those dangers.  Thus, the inclusion of German national socialism within the “socialist” camp becomes important.)  Another reason, which we will examine in what follows, is that German "national socialism" did in fact contain, far more than other socialists have been willing to admit, the common characteristics of modern socialist thought.  Here is a review of how Nazism stood vis a vis those characteristics:

. Collectivist group identity.   The reader will do well to become immersed for a time in the literature of Nazism and of the German Volkish movement that swept over Germany during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Anyone who does that will be struck by the extent of identification with a mystical folk-community and with a sense of overpowering collective mission.  Identification with the race and with the nation was perceived as vastly superior to the "decadence" of "self-centered individualism."

This submergence of self into the collective is, of course, at the center of Nazi political and economic theory.  It is also reflected in the ideology of egalitarianism and "democracy" that developed consistently with the submergence.

Schoenbaum says that “national socialist law authorized the Fuhrer . . . to limit or expropriate property at will where this limitation or expropriation was consonant with the ‘tasks of the community.’”20   He adds that "the Third Reich was notable for the far-reaching transfer of managerial decisions from the managers: Wages, prices, working conditions, allocation of materials: none of these was left to managerial decision, let alone to the market.  It was expedience, not ideological bias, that left property in the hands of its owners."   We have earlier seen Schoenbaum's explanation that "the threat of intervention was always present . . . In a discussion of civil rights, E. R. Huber defined the right of property as a function of duty . . . National socialism claimed total control of the economy."

George Mosse has referred to the ideals that moved young Germans toward either Bolshevism or Nazism: 

"A strong state, a central system of power, directed by a single, capable leader; . . . a society that worked in unison, expressing its own peculiar national fervor."21   Mosse tells about a network of compulsory organizations into which individuals were organized, so that “the boundaries between public and private activities were abolished.”22

The powerful group orientation of other forms of socialism has been accompanied by a stress on egalitarian sharing.  This is an element that was by no means lacking within Nazi ideology.   Mosse says that "the Nazi system was not to be a mere dictatorship from above, but was supposed to be based upon a truly democratic principle of government.   The worldview is basic once again to an understanding of the Nazi meaning of democracy.   Fuhrer and Volk were equal in kind because they shared the same race and blood."   Schoenbaum tells of "an undifferentiated glorification of 'the worker,' in the form of an almost unlimited appeal to social mobility and in an aggressive emphasis on social egalitarianism."   He adds that "equality was a key word, not economic but, as it were, spiritual equality . . . Ideally, equality of status was to extend to equality of opportunity, the distinction between employer and employee would disappear in the fluidity of free competition . . . reorganizing society in a hierarchy of merit."

. Antipathy toward liberal individualism.   The repudiation of classical liberalism stands out every bit as starkly in Nazi thought as it does in the remainder of modern alienated writing.  Hitler excoriated the "bourgeoisie" in Mein Kampf and saw a free market as a "mutual swindling match."   Mosse speaks of the "anti-bourgeois prejudice of Goebbels."   Hitler exclaimed that "the political bourgeoisie is about to leave the stage of history . . . In its place advance the oppressed producers of the head and hand, the forces of labor.”23   Such a statement could just as well have been made by Lenin.  Schoenbaum says that Nazi "leaders were unequivocably sworn to the destruction of liberal values and liberal society."

Nor is this surprising.  Liberalism had been under heavy attack in Germany since the time of the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment in the early nineteenth century.   It was detested by Hegelians of all stripes.   The Volkish movement perceived it as the main cultural adversary.  The Social Democrats under Lassalle and Marx made it the central target.  Nietzsche excoriated liberal values.  In a word, German "national socialism," when it came, could hardly be expected to have been favorable to liberal values.

. Appeal to the disaffected.   Mosse speaks of "the Nazi practice of appealing for the votes of the masses."   The Nazis and the Communists shared much of the same electoral base.   Calvin B. Hoover says that "there were perhaps a million voters who swung back and forth between the Nazis and the Communists . . . ."24   Schoenbaum characterizes Nazism as "the mobilization of disaffection."   He says that it became “an organization of the economically desperate with a considerable admixture of opportunism.”

The appeal was heavily to the young and to the lower middle class, as well as to the worker.  Both Hitler and Mussolini declared a virtual war between the young and the old.  Vetterli and Fort say that "much of Hitler's early success must be attributed" to German youth.

. Elitism.   Nazism was based on the “leadership principle” which  had come to be so standard a part of the German Youth Movement since the turn of the century.   A charismatic leader would assert himself and be recognized as manifesting the General Will (for which purpose I borrow a concept from Rousseau).  This was a principle that was not unique to either German youth or to Nazism, however; David Caute tells us that "Lassalle, although a democrat, argued that a workers' organization must follow its chief blindly and serve as a hammer in his hands."25

There is a strong parallel to Soviet Communism when the leadership principle (which the Communists did not so readily accept) is combined with a powerful, disciplined party and a secret police.   The elitism within Nazism was an open elitism, compounded out of charismatic individuals, members of the Nazi Party and intellectuals.  The elitism within the modern Left has been just as much a factor, but has for the most part remained implicit. 

. Emphasis on change.   Nazism did not seek the defense of a status quo.  "We are . . . a Party of revolutionary socialists," according to Hitler in 1939.  The Third Reich was a time of ceaseless movement, expansion, remolding, consistently with its ideology.  (Schoenbaum makes the point that many of Nazism's goals had not been met prior to the advent of war, but that was far too short a time by which to judge the depth of its desire to change society.)

NOTES

1. Richard Vetterli and William E. Fort, Jr., The Socialist Revolution (Los Angeles: Clute International Corporation, no year given), p. 108.

2. Thomas Kirkup, History of Socialism (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1909),  p. 3.

3. David Caute, The Left in Europe (Since 1789) (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), pp. 9, 26.

4. Albert Fried and Ronald Sanders, Socialist Thought (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1964), p. 535.

5. George Lichtheim, A Short History of Socialism (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), p. 284.

6. Fried and Sanders, Socialist Thought, p. 12.

7. Fried and Sanders, Socialist Thought, p. 531.

8. Article by Norman Thomas, "Humanistic Socialism and the Future," Socialist Humanism, Erich Fromm (ed.) (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1965), p. 347.

9. Eric F. Goldman, Rendezvous With Destiny (New York: Vintage Books, no year given), p. vii.

10. Kenneth M. Dolbeare and Patricia Dolbeare, American Ideologies (Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1971), p. 100.

11.  Leslie Derfler, Socialism Since Marx (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973), p. 142.

12. Werner Sombart, A New Social Philosophy (New York: Greenwood Press, 1969), p. 272.

13. Fried and Sanders, Socialist Thought, p. 531.

14. Ralph Miliband and John Saville (ed.s), The Socialist Register 1977 (London: The Merlin Press, 1977), p. 39.

15. Sombart, New Social Philosophy, pp. xi, 57, 58.

16. John H. M. Laslett and Seymour Martin Lipset (ed.s), Failure of a Dream? Essays in the History of American Socialism (Garden City: Anchor Press, 1974 ), p. 131.

17. Vetterli and Fort, Socialist Revolution, pp. 113, 90.

18. Robert L. Heilbroner, The Limits of American Capitalism (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), p. 106.

19. George A. Steiner, Business and Society (New York: Random House, 2nd ed., 1975), p. 364.

20. David Schoenbaum, Hitler's Social Revolution (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), pp. 154, 157, 55, 119, 62, 81, 82, 44, 15, 43.

21. George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1964), pp. 273, 275.

22. George L. Mosse, Nazi Culture (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1966), pp. xx, xxxvi, 94.

23. Schoenbaum, Hitler's Social Revolution, p. 27.

24. Calvin B. Hoover, The Economy, Liberty and the State (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1961), p. 168.

25. Caute, The Left in Europe, p. 121.