Talk:Nazism

Nazism a leftist term

Why is Nazism consider right-winged when it is a socialist concept? Militarism shouldn't make any difference. - Crazyconan (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the program is "National Socialist", they took over all industries in Germany, and implemended a national health plan. In fact, the only thing in common with rightist beliefs is the strong military. The only reason people think Nazis were right wingers is because 1.) the left in Western nations paints them as such, and 2.) most neo-nazis are right wing in modern times, but most of them only share the racist views of nazism and not political ones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of "Left" and of fascism. The origin of Mussolini's fascism was gangs who were emplyed nby landowners to beat up Communists who had taken over their farms in the early 20s. The German Nazis had mod=stly served apprenticeships in the Freikorps who performed a similar role in an urban context by, for example, murdering Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. The orgin of the term left was in the French Estates General, whereby the opposition sat to the left of the speaker. I would suggest that the "left" supports the interests of the dispossessed and the "right" supports the interests of those who have power and wealth. The rich and powerful seemed not to have especially suffered from the policies of the Nazis until the War. They were supported by the ex-Kaiser and the Junkers aristocracy, whilst still attempting to appeal to the masses- a contradiction which Hitler resolved in 1936 with the Night of the Long Knives. What distinguishes Nazis from Conservatives is that they are a revolutionary movement and the Third Reich continually referred to its elf as a "National Revolution", mostly seeking to restore perceived -generally mythical- former glories. e.g. of Frederick the Great, racial purity of the Folkwanderung and the glory days of an Aryan Atlantis.--Streona (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right and left are arbitrary terms; there's a general consensus on what they mean, but not a completely clear one, and it's not always the same thing now as it was in the thirties. To make it worse, political pundits come in and label anything on the other side of the aisle "fascist" or "totalitarian" and further muddy the waters.

The reason Nazism and fascism are generally considered right-wing movements, and the biggest difference between them and the communists, is economics, specifically each regime's relationships with the workers and the business sector. In communist countries, both parts of society suffered; both labor unions and private enterprises, workers' rights and property rights, were abolished, and the State had final say in all matters.

Fascism and Nazism also repressed workers, but they did not not repress business; that's the difference. Under Hitler, the German government abolished unions, abolished the right to collective bargaining, abolished the right to strike, and caused real wages to drop by about 25% between 1933 and 1939. Nothing similar was ever done to the business sector; private enterprise and private property were always respected by the government, and businessmen were greatly strengthened by subsidies and by the government's penchant for union-breaking. (Hitler's bias towards the business sector went so far that under his government, a German worker was required by law to obtain the consent of his previous employer before getting a new job).

When we say "right-wing", we're clearly not talking about libertarianism, with its the purist "separation of economy and state" ideology, or about the robber-baron model in which business controls government. But because fascism and Nazism involved strong ties and mutual reinforcement between business and government, because they had a very strong stance against workers' rights, and because of the support the Nazi regime received from the other conservative elements of society - the military, much of the religious establishments, and a number of mainstream nationalist and anti-communist politicians - they are usually classified as part of the right. R2Parmly (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also heard in school that right wing prioritizes security (national and individual) over liberties and individual rights (which fascists are obviously more or less the epitome of). Madridrealy (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the US, if not elsewhere, the 'right' has successfully conflated liberal politicians with 'liberal elites' and 'government insiders' and all of these with power at the expense of the dispossessed, with a contiguous retreat by liberal politicians from their support of the working, primarily, but also other dispossessed classes, to say nothing of no longer wishing to associate themselves with liberalism. Ironically, this has made them the very thing they were accused of being. I agree with Streona that the right has always supported power. Their accusations were never more than hypocrisy or even disingenuity, until now. Left and right have always been unfortunate designations, but never more so than today. Anarchangel (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As sick and tired as I am of the "liberal fascism" myth and the rest of the propaganda conservative strategists have put out there about what Nazism really was, I don't think that's entirely fair. Prioritizing security over freedom isn't a right-wing only trait; the Soviet government did it repeatedly during its seventy years in power, using the excuses of "defending the revolution" and "the good of the people" to abolish personal rights and do away with people they didn't like. So did every other communist regime (China, North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, etc). And whether or not it's true that "the right has always supported power," plenty of left-wing movements (though usually not in America) have behaved the same way. 147.9.234.143 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as I suspect, there is an alternative to disappearing people and reeducation camps after a revolution, no one has yet found it; this is not a right or left wing inevitability or trait, See Salvadoran Civil War for right wing death squads, and of course contrast White Terror - Spain and Red Terror - Spain for how both sides will commit these acts. It is a function of hatred, of course, but it does not occur without a perceivable threat. The American Revolution, for example was not a revolution in this respect, and others; it was a colony fighting for independence from a faraway nation. Once foreign intervention is gone, colonial independence movements typically have no enemies within their nation to protect their gains from. Contrast this with the Civil War, where atrocities on both sides were reported; the perceived enemy was clear and present. I resisted the temptation to talk here about the degrees of threat that the USSR faced in its cold war standoff with the US; if you would like to debate about it, I have some things I would like to say, and my talk page is open to such. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The description at the beginning of this article fails to describe exactly how the Nazi Party in Germany was associated with "the right". It merely makes the claim, with no facts. It would appear to me as a cover for the obvious affiliation with National Socialism, which would be "the left". Whether or not the Nazis were enemies of Communism, or favorable to "some" businesses, not others, does not make them "right-wing".

To associate "the right" with Fascist Nazi Germany is simply false. Nazi Germany espoused ethnic "purity" or cleansing and militaristic expansion of its empire, The Third Reich. The Nazis didn't quit until they had total control of the government of Germany, and of Europe. Democracy and individual liberties were almost completely absent. Nazism was a sister of Fascism, which is based on Socialist philosophy—control of the means of production, and control of the people, under autocracy or oligarchy. Even while "some" may have had private property in Germany, others simply had nothing—others still, didn't have the right to live. Conservative or "right-wing" philosophy believes in a Constitutional Republic—a Democracy based on laws designed to protect the rights of the individual and each individual's right to prosperity and private property. It's funny, and somewhat disappointing, to find such demonization here, in wikipedia.

If anyone prefers to use the argument of the Iraq invasion under G.W. Bush as right-wing "militarism", you must also consider the U.S. involvement in Vietnam by J.F.K., followed by open engagement by L.B.J. — American leaders have felt an obligation to fight against tyranny and ethnic cleansing wherever it may appear in the world. Bill Clinton brought in the American military, with a small NATO force, to end ethnic atrocities in Kosovo. A bi-partisan congress, with full support of the Democrat Party in America, approved of military action in Iraq and later turned on their "right-wing" constituents for political gain—which appears to have worked. (I am merely trying to be brief)

Any politician, or philosophy, that believes in larger centralized government control, either by nationalizing private business, controlling free markets, or redistributing wealth through government jurisdiction, or believes in any form of Eugenics—the belief that the "unfit" should be "removed" (see Margaret Sanger)—must reject the laws that guarantee freedom, private property, an individuals right to prosper and basic fundamental rights of human beings to live without being considered "unfit". One of these is clearly "left-wing" and the other is clearly "right-wing". If it can be argued that the Nazi Party was in any way "right-wing", then the facts behind the statement must be given, without merely a link to a book. Many other books, with opposing points of view, can be given.

I personally think, no matter what you believe, it is imperative for Wikipedia to get this correct. Perhaps leaving "left" or "right" out of it? Coolwiki3 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pure revisionism to try to paint Nazism as left-wing. Free Trade liberalism is traditionally a left-wing stance, associated with republicanism, anti-protectionism, internationalism, even early socialism. You have to realize that when Adam Smith was writing in favour of a free market, he wasn't arguing from the Right against left-wing socialists and social democrats- he was writing against Toryism, against nationalist protectionism that favoured the landed aristocracy over the non-nobility. In seeking to use the state to protect the industry of their nation the Nazis have more in common with Benjamin Disraeli than any socialist. Nationalist, racist, protectionist- right-wingers to the hilt. 92.29.237.34 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It was Stalin era propaganda that painted Nazism as right-wing. Nazism and Communism were competing socialist economic policies with a nationalist orientation vs. an internationalist orientation, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.105.206 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the comments in this section are biased. I believe you people should take off your political hats and take a chill pill. Dontdeletecontent (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it obvious that Nazism is a left-wing ideology, aligned on the same side of the spectrum as socialism and Communism, and other strong government ideology. The article links to a definition of far-right that is basically defining the term of far-right as racism, segregation, authoritarianism, and lack of human rights which clearly is not the normal view, since conservatives, often labeled as right-wing, believe in the individual freedom and small government. Yet, one cannot edit this article to remove "right-wing," which makes Wikipedia just a tool for the left (socialists, communists, strong government types) to distort things for political reasons as opposed to advancing knowledge. 174.55.27.48 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Why didn't you say so before? If it is "obvious" then we will just get all the history books pulped and reprinted to reflect all the stuff that various individuals or small groups claim is "obvious" even if different people's "obvious" claims are contradictory. Sorry for the heavy-handed sarcasm, but surely you can see why "obvious" cuts no ice?

The main point you are missing, and this is far more important than your misunderstanding of what left and right mean, is that we are not here to argue our own opinions. We are here to write an encyclopaedia based on the consensus in the field. Bring us proof that serious academic historians or political analysts think that the Nazis are left wing and it can go into the article, even if we disagree with it. Without such proof it wouldn't even matter if you were right. We have a policy against original research, even stuff that might be correct.

If you read a bit more history you will see good and bad people on both the left and right. Pointing out that the Nazis were right wing is no more an insult to all the rightwingers who are not Nazis than pointing out that Stalin was left wing is an insult to all the leftwingers who are not Stalinists. In short, you are perceiving an insult where none exists. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal. Nazism incorporates both left and right politics. However, it is a form of extreme reactionary policies against the Communist ideology, which is by definition far right. Nazism is far right in practice. It seems that many people here disputing this fact are confusing Nazism and Fascism with American conservatism. These terms are not mutual. It's like confusing Communism with American liberalism. They are not mutual. Please understand that left and right politics are originally coined by the French Assembly during the Revolution and are not exactly the same as American liberalism and conservatism. The traditonal definition of liberalism is progressive thought, personal liberty and reform . Whereas conservatism is retaining an existing order in fear of drastic change. Please pick up a history book and read up on it. Those of you who are trying to dispute this are misunderstanding the political spectrum and percieving comparisons where there are none. By the way, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg is hardly factual. It has been repudiated by actual scholars and historians. The main premise of the book is simply bad association conservative polemic from a writer for the National Review. Many may think facts have a liberal bias.Facts do not have any bias to the left or right. If you percieve this, then you have a misinformed worldview. 70.74.238.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

Mostly agreed, though you injected quite a lot of personal opinion in that. Due to politics generally being thought of merely as left-right, it is a fair and accurate representation to paint Nazism as right-wing. They came into power by directly opposing contemporary liberal ideals. If you don't know about this, I suggest reading up on the Weimar Republic. People often get irked when extreme examples are brought up - i.e. Somalia for libertarians, Germany or Italy for the far-right nationalists, the Soviet states for... well, the varied left-wing views (there are more examples for far-left mostly due to the geographic area it spread from.) Anyway.... Yes, Nazism is absolutely far-right, on a left-right political spectrum. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture to call Nazism a kind of Radical Centrism, positioning itself against both Capitalism and Communism but essentially cherrypicking pretty much with the only goal being more power to the Fuhrer. So we have a government that nationalizes certain industries for simplicity's sake, but giving more power to the owners of other industries while keeping them privately owned. It essentially was Hitler's way of concocting an Authoritarian monster with all the State power from the "left" and all the business power from the "right", and taking from neither aspects that empowered the working classes.98.236.191.219 (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazism is... "in practice, is a form of far right politics."

This statement in the introduction seems a bit biased. For one, it seems incorrect. Also, it seems contradictory to many other points of the article.

While it is true that "left" and "right" are relative terms, in the United States there is at the very least a general consensus. Many will jump at this point to link the former to the Democrats and the latter to the Republicans. This may've been historically correct, but along the way the line has blurred a lot. Both major political parties favor larger government power and control, a typically "left" idea. Whereas "right," tends toward less governmental intrusion (thats probably an unfair term, but this is a talk page). Nazism, a form of Fascism, was strong on government control, just like the classically accepted as "far-left" ideology of Socialism. Moreover, the term "Nazi" clearly indicates socialism: National Socialism. The difference is between the control of production and the like.

As for contradictions, there is a section in the article on "Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric," which is not something that would make sense in a far-right ideology. And to quote the article which quotes Hitler:

"Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance.” However, In 1929, Hitler called socialism "an unfortunate word altogether" and said that "if people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism". According to Henry A. Turner, Hitler expressed regret for having integrated the word socialism into his party's name. Hitler wrote in 1930, “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”

I'd hyper-link to the above quote, but I'm not so html-savvy.

Since this is a semi-protected article, I cannot edit it. However if someone else could take up the baton for me and try to clarify this oversight, it would be much appreciated.

TylerAE (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• See left-wing politics, right-wing politics, far left, far right and the various articles about the left and the right. That might help clear up your confusion.Spylab (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the "in practice, is a form of far right politics" line seeing how it has only created bickering. Thismightbezach (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

    The line in back.

The line is back. Furthermore, there are many historians and others that dispute this claim. The book Liberal Fascism is quite clear on how fascism is actually a far-left movement, along with communism. In fact, when one looks objectively at the Nazi political platform, the differences between Soviet communism and Nazism are almost all in terms of nationalism v. internationalism and the methods of control over the people - not on whether government control is good, which is a core tenant of traditional LEFT thought. The far-right is traditionally anarchy at the true extreme, about as far from Nazism as you can get in politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.186.88 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This book "Liberal Fascism" is a textbook written by a reputable historian and taken seriously by other historians and political theorists as a good introduction to the subject of Fascism, is it? I thought not. So your "many historians" is really "a few people with strong contrarian opinions".

I am not aware of any mainstream historians who place Nazism on the left. There is some discussion about how closely Nazism should be identified with the right but nobody serious seriously puts Nazism on the left. At Wikipedia we reflect the consensus in the field, not our own opinions. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

that's because none exist. people just get very irked if they find themselves on the same wing as a frightening ideology (though fascism is more than simply an ideology.) these kinds of comments are going to stop anytime soon, either. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Put the correct phrase "National Socialism" into the heading also! "Nazism, National Socialism"

Nazism (in its most common usage) is short for National Socialism. This term is the English translation of "Nationalsozial..." the beginning of the full name of the Nazi party.

The way the heading is set up, it seems the top editors are afraid of acknowledging the most common usage of these terms, and (maybe???) afraid of acknowledging the Nazi version of socialism that existed in Nazi Germany.Victorianezine (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's most commonly used to refer to the specific ideology and party of Adolf Hitler during and after the fall of the Weimar Republic. National socialism is more than that, however. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.62.114.203, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I thought Naziism was spelled with 2 consecutive "i"s ?? The dictionaries agree.

Both spellings are in use and correct. Naziism redirects to the article so there is no problem with people searching using the alternative spelling. I think I remember this being asked about before and that Nazism was found to be the most common spelling. If so, we shouldn't change the whole article but I think there is a good case for acknowledging the alternative spelling as also correct in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Some reliable sources have used "Naziism" (for example, this 70-year-old Time article); of course, in terms of google hits there's a huge difference (83K for two i's and 2.65M for one i). I think the alternate spelling is worth a brief mention. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Added in alt spelling with reference used above. If you want to change the prose to something better, feel free. 930913(Congratulate) 14:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazism v. Capitalism

References to Nazism as anti-capitalist are misleading. The Nazis spread socialist propaganda to win working-class votes, but overall, their policies were friendly to big business. Quotations from Hitler and Goebbels are in no way a reliable guide to Nazi policy

ADOLF HITLER by John Toland, p. 378

"Late that November, thirty-nine prominent businessmen (including Hjalmar Schacht, former Chancellor Cumo, and tycoons like Krupp, Siemens, Thyssen, Bosch, Woermann and Voegler) signed a letter petitioning Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor of Germany. These pragmatic men were placing a bet on the NSDAP. They were confident Hitler's socialism was a fraud and that, once in power, he would be a tool of capitalism."

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, by William L. Shirer, p. 205:

"But Hitler had contrary thoughts. For him the Nazi socialist slogans had been merely propaganda, means of winning over the masses on his way to power. Now that he had the power, he was uninterested in them. He needed time to consolidate his position and that of the country. For the moment at least the Right -- business, the Army, the President -- must be appeased. He did not intend to bankrupt Germany and thus risk the very existence of his regime. There must be no second revolution.

This he made plain to the S.A. and S.S. leaders themselves in a speech to them on July 1. What was needed now in Germany, he said, was order. 'I will suppress every attempt to disturb the existing order as ruthlessly as I will deal with the so-called second revolution, which would lead only to chaos.' . . .

No more authoritative statement was ever made that the Nazi revolution was political, not economic."

INSIDE THE THIRD REICH by Albert Speer, p. 89

"It was no accident that after the Roehm putsch the Right, represented by the President, the Minister of Justice, and the generals, lined up behind Hitler. These men were free of radical anti-Semitism of the sort Hitler advocated. They in fact despised that eruption of plebian hatreds. Their conservatism had nothing in common with racial delusions. Their open display of sympathy for Hitler's intervention sprang from quite different causes: in the Blood Purge of June 30, 1934, the strong left wing of the party, represented chiefly by the SA, was eliminated. That wing had felt cheated of the fruits of the revolution. For the majority of the members of the SA, raised in the spirit of revolution before 1933, had taken Hitler's supposed socialist program seriously."

It is my personal conviction that attempts to identify National Socialism as a genuinely socialist ideology are just as mistaken as any effort to associate it with the American version of conservatism.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User Forest Johnson wrote: "References to Nazism as anti-capitalist are misleading. The Nazis spread socialist propaganda to win working-class votes, but overall, their policies were friendly to big business."

Since when has government being "friendly to big business" been a feature of capitalism per se? Mercantilism perhaps, where monopolies were granted by the crown, and various kinds of fascist and mixed-economy systems have this feature, but in order to have capitalism the government must maintain a predominantly neutral, hands-off stance with respect to the peaceful operation of privately-owned businesses whether large, small, or of a free-lance individual. It should be clear that the only 'pure' capitalism would be in the context of a laissez-faire regime, which has not yet really existed and that the varieties of 'impure' capitalism often need to be carefully distinguished. A "capitalism" under which a government grants monopolies or favors particular enterprises, groups or individuals and/or maintains government-owned enterprises might be called crony capitalism, syndicalism, economic fascism, economic nationalism, or, in a quirk of history, post-Maoist Chinese 'Communism' (a.k.a. post-Maoist Chinese capitalism), 'state capitalism' (an oxymoron, of course), Eurosocialism, or simply a mixed economy, etc., but certainly not capitalism simpliciter. See Capitalism for more ideas. Instead of trying so hard to tie one's least-favored ideology to Nazism (= bad, of course), let's have some of that intellectual 'nuance' we hear so much about. —Blanchette (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The German government had, at least since the 19th Century, granted monopolies and favored particular groups. The Nazis did not change this, though they certainly had their own plans as to which groups should be favored. Theoretical discussions as to the nature of capitalism are best conducted elsewhere.

It is not a productive question to debate whether Nazi Germany was pro- or anti-capitalist. Like most countries, it had a mixed economy, and like most countries, this shifted toward government economic planning in wartime. Of more interest is the question, in what sense did the Nazis understand the word "socialism?" We do know that Nazism was an ideology in which many words took on different meanings: "Fanaticism" was a positive virtue, "volunteer" had a non-voluntary quality, and "protective custody" was used to describe the worst kind of persecution.

"'Socialism,' a term invariably pressed into service to describe industrial innovations sponsored by the regime, was also applied to 'self-inspector' and 'self-calculator' schemes that were pioneered at teh Kloeckner-Humboldt-Deutz motor works. 'Self-inspectors' were particularly reliable workers, whose work was exempted from the scrutiny of inspectors. . . . 'Socialism' here meant either that the firm saved on supervisory personnel, or that some workers profited at the expense of others." (The 12-Year Reich by Richard Grunberger, p. 218.)

"In their public proclamations the Nazi leaders all declared their solidarity with the workers and portrayed themselves as their benefactors. But their actual policies were quite another story. This was the Law for the Organization of National Labour of January 1934, which dubbed the entrepreneurs 'leaders of industry' and the workers and salaried employees their 'followers.' According to the 'Fuehrer principle' the entrepreneurs were therefore 'sole masters in their realms of activity,' to whom their employees owed 'absolute fealty.' There was no longer such a thing as a works council, no youth representation, no forum for workers' participation. In cases of gross abuse the functionaries of the German Labour Front could intervene. But they confined themselves to issues like provision for rest rooms or locks on lockers; wages, production quotas, overtime, and deductions from pay were dictated from high. And in 1935 they reintroduced employment booklets, such as workers had in Kaiser Wilhelm's day. Without an employment booklet no one could get a job, and if an employer didn't want a worker to leave, he could refuse to return the worker's employment booklet." (In Hitler's Germany by Bernt Engelmann, p. 47.)

"The Nazis did not understand under 'Socialism' concrete measures to protect the weaker members of society from the economically more powerful (for example, tariffs, insurance coverage, social security, workers' councils, participation in management, profit-sharing, and so on), which are generally considered socialist measures. Instead, Hitler sought to create a closed and harmonious racial community, in which all interest groups were included in a common sense of pride to be German and to be allowed to contribute to the "New Germany". The Nazi version of socialism, it was announced, recognized for this reason neither citizens nor proletarians, only Germans. Both the hands and the head of the workers would be engaged to expand the German empire. Behind these slogans were measures to reduce social tensions and to intoxicate all Volksgenossen [racial comrades]in a feeling of militant nationalism." (translated from Der Nationalsozialismus published by the Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, Berlin, p. 41.)

"Hitler's idea of socialism, then and later, was in complete accord with his feelings about the stupid, tractable, manipulable mass, whose needs could be satisfied with the classical method of panem et circenses [bread and circuses]. Anyone genuinely concerned about the people was in Hitler's eyes a socialist. The coming revolution was not meant for this popular victory over Jews and other 'inferiors' -- the true völkisch-racist revolution -- remained the only genuine kernel of Hitler's ideology, regardless of the proclamations of National Socialist doctrine and propaganda; almost everything else was Machiavellian power politics. Hitler also looked at economic economic and social programs from this vantage point." (The German Dictatorship by Peter Gay, p. 181.)

In short, National Socialism was not "socialist" as we understand the term. Under the Nazis, it referred to a racial community and militant nationalism which does not fit neatly onto either the "right" nor "left" of our political spectrum.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction Needed. Nazism is... "in practice, is a form of far right politics."

That needs to be removed or changed. The fact is national Socialism is a left winged philosophy. I believe confusion had linked the far right winged Anarchist Neo Nazis have been confused with national Socialism. Wikipedia has more and more become infiltrated by ideologues from both sides. Neo-Nazism is a right winged philosophy because it is a form of Anarchy. This article about Nazism is written to point to Nazi Germany, which was about one party rule, central government based on National Socialism. Please Correct this. It does not live up to accuracy standards of Wikipedia.