Talk:Nazi Party

Far right in practice? Is this a joke?

Actually calling NSDAP "syncretic" can be took as a compromise in that issue, but saying that it was "far right in practice" is I presume some joke. Why there is nowhere mentioned about left-winged, socialist views on the economy? It's like the economy views were no important at all, if they aren't took under consideration in the note about political position of the party. Also I think it should be considered, if the fact that "majority of scholars identify Nazism as far right" is really justifiable opinion, or it's just caused political correctness and ignoring social and economical views of this party, which actually happens quite often. W.J.M. (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. First thing they did, broke the unions. Jailed socialists, labor activists, communists, when they didn't kill them outright. When their quasi-left-wing patsies demanded crackdown on conservative businessmen and conglomerates, pulled the Night of the Long Knives and purged them. Acted at all times as the hitmen for the Abwehr, absorbed all the brutes of the Stahlhelm movement and gave them better uniforms and weapons. Doesn't sound like mere political correctness to me, WJM. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

did the factory owners have a choice what to produce, or were they restricted by wage and price controls? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wage and price controls are ideologically neutral on the left-right spectrum; they've been used by deep reactionaries and of course by Stalinists. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

However taxes were cut, companies were privatized, inflation was brought under control and the military was rebuilt. TFD (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

wage and price controls are anti-free market. which companies were privatized? rebuilt the military means the government forced private factories to make weapons? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You can read about it in "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany".[1] And of course wage and price controls have been used by parties of the Left and Right. TFD (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Darkstar? Not all conservatisms are free-market; "liberal" outside the U.S. means pro-freemarket policies. All the original right-wingers were statists and more or less virulently anti-freemarket; even an anarcho-socialist like me acknowledges that, whatever we think of raw capitalism. It is an American delusion that conservatism is an exclusively free-market ideology. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

O, left/right spectrum is a flawed expression which changes meanings relevant to geography and decade. tdf, i did read it, they use the term re-privatization which one would assume means the factory is given back to the person it was confiscated from in the previous decade, instead the assets were divided among party members, not quite the "privatization" most people associate with the free market. You are inadvertently implying the police/fire/water/elec dept were sold off to the public, when actually the steel, rail and banks were seized by the government, then divided up among bureaucratics a few years later. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happens in most privatizations: the publicly-owned goods and jobs are given to the already rich and powerful elite entities with the best connections among the ruling class and its politician puppets. In the U.S., that means people like the Koch Brothers, Blackwater, MAXIMUS, for-profit "school" operators, and whatever Sodexho Food Services calls itself nowadays. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Re-privatization" in Nazi Germany meant that failed industries that had been bailed out and bought by the government were sold back to private investors in order to finance tax cuts and military spending. TFD (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nazis called themselves syncretic, some scholars agree that they are syncretic, a large body of scholars classify them as far-right. However, certainly the major theme of the Nazis: their racial supremacism, is far-right. It is best to show both its official syncretic stance that some also perceive as accurate and the far right stance that many scholars identify it as. Nevertheless, it is not our business to debate what left-wing or right-wing is here with our theories, it is to relevant sources to back up claims. I'm tired of people bringing up the idea that Nazism was left-wing, there is a quote in this article from Mein Kampf where Hitler visciously denounces left-wing politics in Germany as treacherous as well as condemning right-wing politics as cowardly - the Nazis appealed to a populist syncretic stance - that did definately include far-right stances on race, disability, and sexual orientation.--R-41 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Denouncing conservatives as cowardly is not a luxury reserved for the left or middle; read any ultra-conservative or reactionary blog. (Same goes for the other side, of course: how many liberals and progressives nowadays, including myself, regularly rant about the gutlessness of the Democratic Party's "leaders" like Reid and the entire DNCC/DSCC Coalition of Timorousness who are terrified of being perceived as actually standing for anything but not being Republicans?) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking from scholarly sources to promote this doesn't help (For example, Griffin describes fascism rather firmly as revolutionary right). It is important to also note that some academics who refer to them as being, to use the terms of Sternhell, 'Ni droite, ni gauche' are actually simply saying their politics were outside the conventional spectrum but out to the right. Ultimately the mainstream view is that the Nazis are far right, that there is debate is good - include it in the text. It is just too controversial to present as fact within an info box without that surrounding debate. --Narson ~ Talk • 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The official syncretic statement is important nonetheless to state. Hitler in Mein Kampf was accusing the left with treason and the right with cowardice and giving up to conspiratorial international Jewry, hardly appearing to be a minor disagreement, and note that he attacked the entire left and the entire right, not just components of them. As long as we recognize that most scholars view Nazism as far-right, then the article is accurate. I believe including the official syncretic position that other scholars identify helps readers to understand what the Nazis appealed to. The Nazis fiercely sought to keep the label of reactionary off of them and sought to emphasize that they were anti-reactionary and emphasized differences between themselves and what they considered the "bourgeois" "reactionary" German National People's Party. Hitler along with Mussolini unlike conventional right-wing leaders took great pride in emphasizing that they had lived in poverty as struggling youth and had associated with poor and homeless people whom they claimed had been driven into poverty by modern bourgeois liberal capitalism.--R-41 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nazi regime despised intellectualism and truly any cultural expressions which "clashed" with Nazi ideology were put down (and/or prohibited). The Nazis were cultural reactionary. As we all know, the Nazis were obsessed with race (Blood and Soil), sports and rallies. Rallies for feelings of inclusion, of something bigger than ones self and to project power to the population (and later the world). Further they were keen on mythology and symbolism; again towards racial purity and Nordic paganism (but not overt occultism, but for Himmler and a few others). They were not an organized cult, but did have aspects of one. In the end, it is hard to easily "pigeon-hole" them into one nice neat little box. Kierzek (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that they cannot be pigeon-holed neatly into one category. Nazis and fascists in general have to be viewed beyond mere left and right issues. Generic fascists' extreme social Darwinism preaching survival of the fittest and ellimination of the weak through war (that would both elliminate the weak on their nation's side and if in victory eliminate their weak opponent) is far right. However other ideas were not far-right, their economic policies of class collaboration, social welfare for the deserving, and recognition of the contributions of the working-class to society ranged from centre-right (i.e. social welfare only for the deserving) to centre-left (class collaboration and recognition of working-class contributions). All fascists were influenced in some way by the tactics of Marxism even though they denounced Marxism - fascist political language spoke of the bourgeoisie and proletariat and the existance of class conflict but called for the need for class collaboration to eliminate attempts by different classes to attain dominance and therby resolve class conflict. The political language of the Nazis and fascists in general was very syncretic.--R-41 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You are taking nazi writing as definitive of their ideology. Right-wing extremists typically stand for the little guy against the elites and the minorities and claim that the established parties are the same and that they themselves are beyond left and right. TFD (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But the definition of right-wing extremism you define as being the embattled common person against elites and established parties could just as easily be ascribed to communism of the far-left as being on the side of the embattled proletariat against the elites.--R-41 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say "fascist"? I think everybody could agree on that point. But regarding the discussion about left elements in their policy: The parts of the party, which called for implementing left elements to some degree, where imprisoned or killed in 1934 ("Röhm-Putsch", "Night of the long knives"). There was also no economic theory, on which nazis could have relied on to intervene into economy. When they did, it was to prepare war. In my opinion, you cant mean to declare that a leftist opinion. 217.50.239.213 (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2011

hi i would like to correct some of the things in this article

Conman0723 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, if you want to be able to edit it yourself you need to be autoconfirmed or confirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Title of the article

I think the title should be changed to "National Socialist German Workers Party" because this is the real name of the party. Ich901

If I recall correctly (without combing through the archives of this talk page to confirm), I believe that this very topic was decided in favor of the current title per WP:COMMONNAME. Not that your suggested name isn't logical (it definitely is), just that an alternate logic is what keeps it at the current name. Hope this helps. In the end, both titles could work, so unless a swelling of sentiment to move the page builds up, the alternate suggestion would probably just remain as "duly noted". — ¾-10 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

do you realise that the real name is used as title in every other language version of this article. at least NSDAP would fit more as a title. Ich901

Yes. It has been discussed more than once. Anyway, there are redirects from all the other names so that people searching on the other terms will still find the article. There is no good reason to rename it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

the best reason to rename it, is to give it the correct name. What about to name it "National Socialist German Workers Party" and redirect from "Nazi Party"? Ich901

agreed, NSDAP is a better title. wp:commonname is not applicable since a more specific naming convention exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(political_parties). Darkstar1st (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) says, "Where acronyms are far more commonly used than full names in international news media, the acronym should be preferred". TFD (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

correct, so the correct title would be NSDAP, adding the word "party" after is redundant. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Nazi Party is more common than NSDAP. TFD (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For the general reader, Nazi Party would be most common. 6,650,000 hits on Google, for example. Remember this is suppose to be written for general readers on about an 8th grade level. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

a ridicules debate given there is already a nazi and nazi germany article. this page should have been merged long ago. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not have a "nazi" article, that page redirects to Nazism. So we have separate articles about a party, its ideology and its period in government. TFD (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

exactly, no other subject gets such treatment in wp and this article is a perfect example of redundancy. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! We have articles about Communism and various individual articles about various Communist parties. We have articles about Liberalism and articles about various individual Liberal parties. We have articles about Socialism, Conservatism, Fascism, InsertYourFavouriteIsmHere, etc, and still have articles about individual parties that adhere to those ideologies. Far from being inconsistent, it is totally consistent and sensible for us to have an article about Nazism as an overall ideology and an article about various Nazi parties, of which this is the main one. Admittedly Nazism is a bit different in that the one party pretty much defined the whole stinking ideology while the others were just gimps and fanboys but it still makes sense for us to cover the ideology and the parties, as organisations, separately.

Having a third article for Nazi Germany also makes sense as that covers the whole Nazi German state, not just the party as an organisation. Sure the party was meddling in pretty much every aspect of the state but that doesn't affect the way we structure our articles. Again that is perfectly consistent with other articles. For example, we have separate articles on the Roundheads and the Commonwealth of England which was their state. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reversed a group of edits.[2] One of them said that Hitler moved to establish a totalitarian regime only after Hindenburg's death, which does not appear to be supported by the sources. TFD (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)