Talk:Nazism

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)

I repeat my objections to the anti-capitalism section, which has been changed without notable improvement. What Speer said about Hitler is very true: He really had no interest in economics. Quotations from Hitler and Goebbels speeches are off the mark, I shouldn't have to point out that they told a lot of lies. What Hitler actually did about economics in the first four years of his rule was to leave it mainly in the hands of Hjalmar Schacht, a traditional conservative. Schacht was eventually replaced by Walter Funk, who failed to impose any order on the economy, and by Hermann Goering, whose Four Year Plan, was pragmatically directed toward increasing military production, rather than reorganizing society according to socialist theories. Goering was in fact a deadly enemy of Strasser, Röhm, and the other members of the Nazi left wing, who were exterminated in 1934.

On those rare occasions when Hitler spoke candidly, he said hardly anything about economics. There is nothing about it in Mein Kampf, unless you count the anti-Jewish ranting. If we waste our time reading his "Table Talk," an edited collection of conversations with his cronies, his remarks on the subject are absolute garbage, they do not reveal the slightest understanding: "Once the economy has been definitely organized, we shall have to see to increasing our livestock. We shall also have to devote 100,000 acres to the cultivation of rubber. Because of the fault of capitalism, which considers only private interests, the exploitation of electricity generated by water power in Germany is only in its infancy. The most important hydro-electric installations will have to be reserved, in the first place, for the most important consumers -- for the chemical industry, for example. We shall have to use every method of encouraging whatever might ensure us the gain of a single kilowatt. Let's not forget the old-style mills. If water flows, it's enough to build a dam to obtain electricity. Coal will disappear one day, but there will always be water . . ." (Hitler's Tabletalk, 1941-1942, edited by Hugh Trevor-Roper, p. 22)

(Hitler still talks about "reorganizing" the economy in 1941, eight years after coming to power, and shortly before dropping the whole contradictory mess in the lap of his personal friend Albert Speer, an architect who had no experience with economic issues. It seems to have escaped his attention that German agriculture was highly efficient in producing pigs and chickens, and much less in other kinds of livestock, or that the climate was wholely inappropriate for rubber tree plantations. In order to correct the "fault of capitalism", that it considers only private intersts, he proposes to build huge hydroelectric projects devoted solely to private interests. He further proposes to waste vast sums on the construction of medieval water mills, in order to provide the nation with electricity. So much for Hitler's economic theories.)

The "anti-capitalist" thesis is supported by quotations from "alternative" thinkers, while ignoring the academic consensus. It quotes as authoritative the 1920 program of the German Workers Party (written before Hitler took over and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers Party) and ignores the fact that these provisions had already disappeared from the Sept. 10, 1930 declaration of Nazi principles, three years before Hitler became Chancellor. (See Nazism, A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts, 1919-1945, v. I, p. 72.) This evidence has clearly been selected from the viewpoint of 21st Century American politics, which is irrelevant. We cannot just rewrite history for political purposes, that is what the Nazis did.

When I have the time, I will offer a rewrite of this section, under the title "Socialism", and point out what I said above, that it was based on racial theories and had little resemblance to the the practice of socialism as commonly understood. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

arab nationalism

i've expanded this section with content from the Racism in the Palestinian territories article. if anyone would like to discuss here first, please feel free to revert my addition. also i was planning on adding some information on the bosnian waffen ss division which, although the two are related, might not belong in the arab nationalism section; any thoughts? WookieInHeat (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this section overstates the Nazi commitment to Arab nationalism. The Nazis were solely interested in encouraging an Arab rebellion against the British (which was actually attempted in Iraq and Egypt). At home in Germany, they continued to regard Arabs as non-Aryan, an inferior race, and strictly forbid any intermarriage with them. It is highly doubtful whether Hitler, had he occupied the Middle East, would have created an independent Arab state. What he actually did on these occasions was to create a puppet regime, like the one in Slovakia, or to forget earlier promises to the natives, as happened in the Ukraine. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nazi ideology = natural selection theory

I think more should be said about Darwinism in the ideological roots part along the lines historian Klaus Fischer writes about it. In the beginning of his book "Nazi Germany: a new history" he emphasizes that the most lethal aspect of nazi ideology was it's reliance on predetermination in it's ideology. He stresses that the reader should take account of decisions and contingencies in the history, so not to fall into the trap of predermination that the nazi's fell into. Then in the part of the book where he talks about the ideological roots he begins with an eclectic collection of ideogical influences, but then relativizes them with the enormous influence of Darwinism. Those 2 things together, the reliance on predetermination, and the influence of natural selection theory, both coming from science, should be the main things in the ideology part in my opinion.

Very many historians have written about the link between science / darwinism and nazism, that was considered obvious right after the war, and fairly recently more attention has been paid to that by historians such as Benno Muller Hill, and others. There are also many historians who have argued away from that, but they seem to argue against the obvious. When Hitler writes in Mein Kampf about how natural selection works, and then writes about his policy, uh... they are the same principles. When Hitler says that all policy should be rationalised in terms of the reproduction of the race, then he is identifying himself as part of natural selection. In a letter to apply for a job as army "instructor", Hitler also demands that his anti-semitism is rational, and distances himself from emotional anti-semitism. Also in the schoolbook for the Hitler Youth it starts out with the "factual outlook on life", and the whole atmosphere of nazism is dominated by this coldblooded calculation based on race. I also think that Darwinism goes to great lengths to explain the ideological roots of Mussolini and Hirohito as well. So when emphasis is placed on obscure racists to explain nazi ideology as is done, then you need an entirely new explanation for Hirohito's ideology, and for Mussolini's ideology as well, so it becomes some kind of unlikely coincedence that similar things happened at the same time in 3 places. But Darwinism can explain the ideological roots of all 3 at once, which negates this coincedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syamsu (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are getting this, but it is not from Mein Kampf. Check out the searchable version. No mention at all of Darwin or evolution. What he actually does say (in Chapt. 11), does not sound like Darwinism: "Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable."

Hitler's theories were based on racial purity, not natural selection. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mussolini's ideology didn't rely on Social Darwinism, except perhaps after 1939 and Fascism's absorption of National Socialist racial laws. The Doctrine of Fascism mentions that competition and war between nations is beneficial to breed strength and higher force in the prevailing nation. This, I think, isn't based on Social Darwinism, but supremacy of military force. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Far-right"

The term should just be removed. At the very best it is highly arguable. Thus stating it as fact is POV. Wikipedia could be so great if so many editors with left agendas would stop treating it as a politically useful tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No sources call them "center-right", "moderate right". etc. They were extremists - you do not have to be left-wing to know that. TFD (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The notions of ideological left and right seem a bit confusing. Why is an obviously collectivist ideology such as nazism considered far-right? What type of ideological Right is meant, in that regard? The nazis looked a lot like soviet communists, except they didn't talk from the viewpoint of the proletariat of the world, but talked from the point of view of the German nation. So they seem to have been like nationalist communists, or, as they called themselves, national socialists. Why this is to be considered far-right isn't very obvious, and it also isn't explained at all in the far-right article. --95.34.1.229 (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest you type "far right" and "right-wing" in the "Search archives" field at the top of this talk page. This topic has been discussed many times before.Spylab (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler and his party hated the socialists, communists, marxists and all of the left wing and this is very obvious in their propaganda and in Hitler's speeches. Atheuz (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So? Stalin hated Trotsky. The National Socialists had much more in common with left-wing political movements than they did with right-wing ones. It isn't clear that it makes much sense to assign left/right political labels to movements headed by tyrants. --Paul (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing political movements disagreed. The Nationalists and the Prussian officer corps certainly thought Hitler was on their side. The KPD and SPD hated each other, but were universally perceived as both being on the left. The NSDAP was universally perceived - not just by the KPD and SPD, but by the bourgeois and right-wing parties as well - as being basically on the right. john k (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Or are Papen, Hugenberg, and Hindenburg left-wingers now, too? john k (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

False Claim:

"Nazism was a far right form of politics." All 25 points of the NAZI platform are leftwing and rooted primarily in Nietzche and Marx. There is not a single point in the NAZI platform that is "right wing". Today, in 2010, right wing is associated with limited government and individualism. Wikipedia is notorious for trying to associate the radical unlimited central anti-capitalist government of NAZI Germany, with people in America who simply want limited government and individualism. But because Wikipedia is maintained by mostly left wing intellectuals, there is no chance that this fact that the NAZI party is incompatible with right wing politics as practiced in 2010 will ever be mentioned. I challenge Wikipedia to name any "right wing" group in America in 2010 that advocates a vast central government. But you can find countless groups that do so on the hard left. This is provable, and beyond refute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• The term far right is not generally used to describe limited government and individualism. Try googling "far right" and see what mostly comes up. Also, Nazi Germany only used anti-capitalist rhetoric in its propaganda. In practice, it ran a mixed economy, like the United States. Economics was not a major defining factor of Nazism anyway.Spylab (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Like the United States? Which corporation under Hitler had rights and freedoms? Hitler could nationalize any company at any time for any reason whatsoever. This cannot happen in the United States. There is no comparison. Companies had no rights and abilities under leftist Hitler. The two largest supporters of the Nazi party when it came to absolute power were college youth and school teachers...yea thats always been a 'far right' block of people. July 1933, membership in a cartel was required by all German businesses. By 1937 small businesses with capitalization under 40,000 were dissolved by the state. Sound like the US? Hardly. It is much closer to Chavez under fanatical leftwing control. Far Right today, in the 21st century America means limited government. There is nothing right wing about Nazis. There is nothing captialist about the Nazis. Forcing businesses to join cartels is capitalism? C'mon. When did Wikipedia become propaganda? Everything NAZI's stood for can be found abundantly in the left, from nationalization of businesses, to nationalization of health care, to nationalization of education...things like eugenics and cultural natural selection, all of these ideas had ample support from the intellectual elites. Capitalism was no where to be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • You obviously didn't understand what Spylab was saying above. In any case, Wikipedia isn't here to rewrite history to suit you. Wikipedia goes by published sources. Nazism is far right as far as reliable sources go. This talk page isn't a forum and this has been discussed in detail before. I do find it peculiar that you equate Republican conservatism with far right politics. I'd place most Republicans as centre-right for the most part. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • • "This cannot happen in the United States" -- yes it can. What do you call what happened last year when the U.S. government took over General Motors? If that isn't 'nationalization' I don't know what is. And you seemingly haven't read "Mein Kampf" (few have). The book is replete with your "limited government and individualism". It also carefully lays out Hitler's formulae for continued capital growth among Germany's large corporations, and Hitler's support for individual entrepreneurship. Furthermore, it elucidates Hitler's abject hatred of communism -- particularly as it stifles individual free enterprise -- and his blaming of German Jewish intellectuals for the fomenting of communist thought within Germany. As for college youth and school teachers being the 'largest supporters' of the Nazi party? How do you measure 'large'? What statistics are you referring to? Do you have data to back up the measurement of 'large', Mr. 67.183.191.86? Sounds more like opinion -- yours. In that case, here's my opinion: the largest supporters of Hitler were I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (IG Farben) and Bayer AG (the inventors of aspirin!) -- two of the largest private enterprise corporations in Germany. I might also throw in several American corporations, including Ford, DuPont and Standard Oil. In fact, the latter company sent $2-million to Germany in 1933; gee, I wonder where that ended up. Mr. 67.183.191.86, if you still do not believe that Hitler and the Nazi Party are right-wing -- and thus, not unlike the beloved Republican Party and its offshoot Tea Party -- please read this: WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER. Finally, understand this: my Mother grew up in Nazi Germany -- I know things from her about what went on there in the 1930s/40s that I won't even share on this board. But I will say this: Hitler's Germany was not only as far from a left-wing socialist utopia as you can imagine ... but was a model of society that is ominously being resurrected amongst the right-wing of America today. --Atikokan (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Historian Robert TOMBS

Since the text is locked, I can't make the correction, but "Historian Robert Toombs" is wrong, should be "Historian Robert Tombs," with one "o". The confederate politician was Robert Toombs, with two "o"s. 71.204.84.204 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Naziism as 'far right'

The assertion that Naziism is 'far right' is deeply POV, and in violation of wiki guidelines. There are many people who consider the Nazis to be 'left wing' including the Nazis themselves. The Nazis described themselves as a 'middle way' between the social democrats and the internationalist communists. I'd suggest that labeling Naziism as 'right wing' is a highly controversial and POV statement. Based on what objective standard are the Nazis 'right wing?' Can anyone provide two or three self described 'right wing' sources that describe the Nazis as right wing? I highly doubt it. --Ryan Wise (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the article, the sources are right there, at the end of the first paragraph for starters. This has been discussed many times before. I suggest you check the archives, unless you have something new to add, such as reliable sources that counter mainstream academic sources. freshacconci talktalk 02:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm complaining because I've read the article. The issue was discussed before and still hasn't been fixed. To say that a thing is POV is not to claim that no points of view agree with the statement. You understand the difference between a point of view and an objective fact, I assume? And there are sources that take a contrary position. Hitler's own supporters were explicitly left wing by their own definition, which is fairly compelling. This article contains legitimately controversial assertions, passed off as objectively authoritative. This is the very definition of POV. Similarly, it seems to rely on a definition of 'right wing' which is not accepted by those who self-describe as 'right wing.' Much like the appellation of 'social darwinism' it is something applied exclusively by opponents of a thing to those that they oppose and almost never by proponents of the policy.

--Ryan W (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article contains sources that back up the claims made. Do you have sources that counter the mainstream academic consensus on Nazism? freshacconci talktalk 04:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Plenty. For starters; F.A. Hayek's “The Socialist Roots of Naziism” would be one example. Hayek is pretty indisputably a fiscal conservative's fiscal conservative. Von Mises is similar.

The foreign critics condemn the Nazi system as capitalist. . . . But this is one charge against the Nazis that is unfounded. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism. Yet it is clear that both systems, the German and the Russian, must be considered from an economic point of view as socialist. [1] --Ryan W (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hayek is clearly speaking from an economic point of view of course. What the Nazism article is stating is something more general. As Spylab points out above, the view of Nazism as far right is not about economics. Nazism as a fascist ideology is ultra-nationalist and reactionary. Economically, it was actually a mix of different methods. It was ant-capitalist but also anti-communist. You could argue that Nazism was opportunistic when it came to the economy, embracing whatever was necessary at any given time. But the other indicators of far right politics fit. If you want to work out something that indicates that economists from the Austrian School believed that the Nazis were economically socialist, that would certainly provide more insight into the complexities of Nazism. But to call Nazism left-wing is really what not Hayek was talking about and is not supported by his writing. freshacconci talktalk 04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that ridiculous link to the Fred Phelps site in the Far-right politics article is a legitimate source, you don't understand what WP:V and WP:RS mean, let alone WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. freshacconci talktalk 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was lazy. I'll get a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The section in the article on Anti-capitalism does mention some of this, i.e. whether Nazism was socialist or not. I'd need to read it more carefully myself but don't have the time at the moment, but something elaborating on the Austrian School thoughts on Nazism and Socialism would fit there. freshacconci talktalk 04:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the past, most of my wiki editing has been on scientific topics, which tends to have a different set of problems than political editing. But to get a bit deeper into my underlying thinking ( I know that this can't be put into the article ); the terms 'right wing' and 'left wing' have more than one definition. The terms are universally agreed to have been derived from the sitting arrangements of the French Revolution. But the reasoning behind the derivation varies. The most common definition of "right wing" is "conserving the status quo" since those on the right at the tennis courts(churchmen and monarchists) were conserving their particular status quo. But such a definition has a flaw making its use problematic. It is essentially context dependent. A supporter of Communism in modern Russia would be "Right Wing." Such a communist would have virtually no political or economic relationship to someone who is "Right Wing" in the United States. Without a qualifier of what a person is trying to conserve, use of this definition of the term "right wing" thus does more to obfuscate than to clarify. The other definition of "Right Wing," also derived from ones seating at the tennis courts during the French Revolution, is according to one's alignment to the church. In this definition, the association of the monarchy with the church at the time of the French Revolution is viewed as something of an historical artifact and people cite biblical tracts such as those in the beginning of Samuel to argue that monarchy is not the ideal form of government according to the church. God is depicted as opposing the creation of a monarchy, but relents and agrees to a constitutional monarchy. While such a definition is used less commonly, and seems significantly more common to the right wing than the left wing as self-identified in America, it carries the advantage that it is not context sensitive. Given these problems with the meaning behind 'left' and 'right' and its differing definitions I'm concerned that the use of the term has too much baggage and does more to confuse than inform. --Ryan W (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it has roots in the political alignments of the French Revolution, the left-right terms has long since taken on a life of its own and has developed according to contemporary political developments. The actual seating arrangements of the political factions during the early period of the Revolution, used as a key to interpret modern politics, has not been current since the early 19th century outside two-party system countries. While it is correct that the left-right spectrum is insufficient to completely cover the different aspects of political parties, it is nevertheless common usage, even for academics. And as the sources say, the "right-wing" as a general appellation to nazism and fascism is the most prevalent. Anyway, you might want to browse the archives (or just look a little further up on this page). This discussion has been done to death time and time again, and the current version is a very well established consensus. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

if the left-right dichotomy has "taken on a mind of its own" the vagueness of this definition seems to further support the notion that the phrase "extreme right" lacks a solidly agreed upon meaning by those across the political spectrum. The left-right spectrum isn't simply insufficient to cover different aspects of various political parties. It's essentially a contranym, with diametricly opposed definitions depending on the situation and the person using the term. As such, it's hard to argue that its use here serves any particular function or imparts any information, which makes me wonder why people are so intent on preserving it. --Ryan W (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not vagueness, just adjusted according to modern political developments by the scholars of political theory, as the sources shows. The vagueness is purely on your account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're arguing for something other than the historical meaning of the terms then, could you provide some kind of support? And explain how that definition is amenable to a political spectrum? I would argue that the current dominant usage of "right wing" is based on resistance to change, which is highly context sensitve and requires qualification in terms of what is being conserved for clarity. --75.83.82.224 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resistance to change is the definition of conservatism, not the Right. Conservatives may be right-wing, like Hitler's coalition partners, but not all right-wingers are conservative. TFD (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The majority of sources that I can find seem to define "Right Wing" as opposed to change or desiring to preserve the traditional order. "right: those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]. I don't like this definition since it's highly context sensitive and groups dissimilar organizations. I would suggest, as I have before, that left-wing and right-wing usage of the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" tend to differ from one another. The term has highly disparate meaning depending on who uses it, and so use without some qualification is easily POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A different approach: It's possible to be anti-communist and anti-capitalist at the same time. The Nazis were German nationalists, and were paranoid of anything that smacked of internationalism, which would set Germany as merely an equal to other nations, or erode the concept of "nation" itself. Economics was not their primary goal; the Volk and the purity of the Volk was. And thus they opposed both internationalist communism and international finance capitalism. --FOo (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact the seating arrangement set up during the French Revolution continues in European legislatures to this day. The Nazis were seated on the far right of the Reichstag and fascists today are seated there. When the Nazis came to power it was in alliance with the Conservatives who also sat on the right. Hayek called both Nazis and conservatives socialist, but he did not call them left wing. He considered himself a liberal and a centrist. The Nazis did claim to seek a third way, but it was between capitalism and communism. There were left-wing elements in the Nazi Party and they were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Nazi economic policy was little different from that of other governments during the depression and the Second World War. Initially they governed according to classical liberal principles but began massive spending in order to fund the war. TFD (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Hayek was considered a moderate leftist in his day, (but a moderate to strong economic conservative in modern times, especially in contrast to Keynes.) Similarly, I agree with you that FDR, for instance, is considered to be fairly leftist economically, as the Nazis were. But most importantly, I'd note that 'conservative,' used in a monophylectic manner, is always a function of what a person wishes to conserve. In other words, it should be made explicit what the Nazis attempted to conserve and by what means or else the term 'conservative' or 'right wing' carries no clear meaning. Does that make sense? I think the issue would be clearer if phrased in that fashion rather than using generic terms like 'left wing' or 'right wing.' Property rights are considered to be conservative in Western culture and the Nazis trampled those. Similarly, in practice the Nazis persecuted numerous churchmen and religious institutions which is not considered "conservative." The Nazis were "conservative" in a pagan sense, even appealing to the Spartan custom of killing weak babies. But infanticide for the purpose of genetic purification of stock is decidedly not conservative in regards to other portions of German culture. In that sense, it was strongly 'left wing' (if we insist on using a fairly non-predictive generic left-right dichotomy, which I'd rather see qualified) along with most of the eugenics movement, which called itself 'progressive' in the United States. Given the dramatic changes that Hitler attempted to impose on German society, it seems difficult to label Naziism in practice as solidly 'conservative' where conservative is defined simply as avoiding change. I think that that's a rather confounding definition of conservative, (and one, significantly, often avoided by conservatives themselves) since it tends to group highly disparate things in the same category. But I acknowledge that it is the most common definition. --Ryan W (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hayek was not "considered a moderate leftist in his day". He was a socialist who became a liberal, i.e., centrist. No one is claiming that Hitler was a conservative. He was a right-winger who formed a coalition with conservatives. Conservatism btw has nothing to do with economic liberalism. TFD (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In most reputable definitions, "right wing" is synonymous with conservative. I would be fine if it meant something else, but that definition has some support. The problem, as I've mentioned several times, is that there isn't a commonly agreed upon definition of "right wing" from all parts of the political spectrum. To resolve this we need to be discussing the source of our criteria, not making unsupported assertions. As mentioned, the eugenics movement was associated with the 'left' both in America (what was then called the progressive movement) and in Europe at that time. It's difficult to believe that Hitler eliminated the eugenics proponents from his party during the Night of the Long Knives. Which is why that reasoning, while it's sometimes asserted, doesn't really make any sense.--Ryan W (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced and nothing you have said has any basis in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pcoppney, 5 February 2011

Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]

The last phrase 'in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]" is an opinion. Even though there is source cited, the source is an opinion. In any event the first phrase of the sentence does not seem to agree with the second. It would seem the author noticed this disconnect given the use of a semi colon.

If by "far right" the author meant conservative, that would also be incorrect as the Nazi party certainly did not want to maintain the existing political and social structures of Germany.

And before you go off on a rant perhaps we should use another section of the article as a reference....

"The Nazis sought to distinguish and separate themselves from conservative nationalist competitors such as the German National People's Party (DNVP) by officially denouncing conservatism, and attacking conservative nationalists for being reactionary, bourgeois enemies of the German nation who were equal in blame alongside Marxism for Germany's downfall in 1918.[181] The Nazis made alliances with the DNVP, but they claimed that these were tactical in nature and that the two parties had significant ideological differences.[182]"

come on man! Pcoppney (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing and conservative are not synonymous. Whatever the Nazi ideology may have been, in practice they governed from the right, supported by conservatives and right-wing liberals. TFD (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If right wing and conservative are not synonymous there are quite a few articles in this wiki that need to be edited. The sentence is clearly politically motivated. Just for the record a real reference source (the thesaurus http://thesaurus.com/browse/right-wing) does think the terms are synonymous. I say again Come on man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 February 2011

Your source provides a number of terms, e.g., Tory, reactionary, redneck, illiberal. Do you think that all conservatives are reactionary, redneck, illiberal Tories? TFD (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You wrote this sentence "Right-wing and conservative are not synonymous." You were wrong, don't try to change the subject, this is not about what I think, this is about misuse of the language. And it is not just my source, it is the generally accepted "source" for synonymous terms. Note "my source" did not list Nazi as a synonym for right-wing. Given your logic above then it must follow that Nazis were not conservative. Come on man!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) See the definition of "right(-wing)" given in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, courtesy of the publishers and Google Books:[2]

right-(wing): The opposite of left. As with the term left-wing, the label right-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context. In advanced liberal democracies, perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy. As a result, the ideologies and philosophies of right-wing political parties have included elements of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism libertarianism, and nationalism; and for extreme-right parties racism and fascism. As the policy platforms of parties have varied, so has the popular conception of the left-right dimension. In surveys, self-placement on a "left-right" scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization, post-materialism, and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity.

TFD (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. As noted in your quote "perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy." As the Nazi's were most certainly socialist in their approach to the control of the means of production you must certainly agree they were not conservative and were in fact leftist, at the very least not the "far right." It is obvious you are trying to change thought by mangling the language. Please stop; if you wish this article and moreover, the wiki itself, to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Except, of course, that the Nazis were not socialist and no reliable, mainstream source labels them as such. Read it again: "In advanced liberal democracies, perhaps more than anything else the right has been defined in opposition to socialism or social democracy." In other words, liberal democracies today define left and right in this way. The definition goes on to state that right wing includes "...nationalism; and for extreme-right parties racism and fascism." The Nazis were nationalistic, racist and fascist, thus extreme right-wing. This is what the sources say so this is what we use. freshacconci talktalk 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may want to read the sections of the article about private property and Economic ideology again. I do appreciate you attempt to marginalize me with the "mainstream" comment. However given the facts that the Nazi's started out as a labor union and the they used the word Socialist to describe themselves I feel certain there is some hint of socialism in there somewhere. And when you say "this is what "WE" use, to whom might you refer? As we are having this discussion it is obviously not "US." They were radical and they were extremist but they were just as "far-left" as they were "far-right" however that is not in the opening paragraph of the article; wonder why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a debating society. TFD (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How profound. It is obviously not to be considered a neutral source of information either. Oh, and this is the first thing I saw on Freshacconci's page. Raul's Razor An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. Perhaps this article is not as neutral as it could be, or there is the possibility that you are not as neutral as you think you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You think highly of yourself. When I say "mainstream" it has nothing to do with distinguishing any view from yours: what I refer to is mainstream, academic and reliable sources that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, must rely on. By "we" I mean all of us who edit on Wikipedia and by the guidelines of Wikipedia, such as WP:RS and WP:V. The Nazis called themselves "socialist", true. The official name of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic. I think you'd find few who would describe them as democratic in any way that is recognizable to anyone today. Nazi Germany was a mixed economy, neither left nor right in that regard, or more to the point, they used a number of methods of economic regulation and control. What makes them far-right is the other designations of what far-right is, extreme nationalism, racism and fascism. This is what the sources say and this is what we follow. Neutrality does not mean balance: not every viewpoint needs to be presented. This is not journalism, this is an encyclopedia and we present the prevailing view without insisting on our own interpretations. Find more than fringe sources that state that Nazism is far-left. freshacconci talktalk 23:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice word salad. I find it odd that I am patronized by someone that feels the the need to create yet another encyclopedia, even if it is a tertiary one, that must be subsidized by being placed at the top of every search returned by the worlds largest search engine just to be relevant. Odd how no other encyclopedia even makes on to the first page of results. Please, be serious, your condescending remarks are cute, but add no value. Obviously not every viewpoint needs to be presented, only the ones you find relevant. Which seems to be a theme in this collection of articles. A question. If there are so many sources of this information and it is so widely know by the "mainstream", what need have we of another? Were the learned scholars that are referenced in the article just not able to effectively articulate their points? Does it fall to you select few to condense and crystallize the information into a form we ignorant brutes can consume? As for the neutrality issue we agree, it matters not whether there is balance according to the razor. I can sense the authors sympathies before finishing the first paragraph, hence it is not neutral. Play by your own rules, you made them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.232.44 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Says here that the Nazi`s had a distinct left wing element.

• Collier Martin, Pedley Philip. Hitler and the Nazi state Heinemann. 1st ed. 27 April 2005. ISBN 978-0435327095

"in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics." - FALSE

Calling Nazism, Fascism, and Racism "Far Right" is completely false.

This guy gets it right:

"Though this definition (that Nazism is far right) is accepted and promulgated by media and educators, how does this fit into any rational system of understanding political ideology? It does not, of course, but whenever any group displays any activity that does not adhere to a politically correct agenda, and can be pronounced by liberals as being racist, sexist, bigoted, or intolerant — whether this description is accurate or not — the group is deemed “right-wing.” " http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/european/2161-ideological-bedfellows

So somewhere, somebody got the idea that racism is a "far right" trait even though the only major piece of legislation in the last several decades that discriminates based on race (in the US) is affirmative action promoted by the left. But even then I give the left the benefit of the doubt. I do not think the "far left" is racist, neither is the "far right". Racism can happen regardless of political orientation.

So forget about the Nazis' authoritarianism, statism, socialist qualities, and collectivism and say that because they were 'racist' they must be 'far right'. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.141 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(Since you are going to SPAM multiple pages with this nonsense, I'll follow you around and post this as well...) Your source is ludicrous, as is your thesis. The author you quote is no academic, and has no credentials whatsoever that I can locate. You rely upon a false dichotomy to make your assertion (i.e., the idea that Left=Statism/Collectivism, while Right=Less Gov't/Anarchy) which is absurd and has no historical justification whatsoever. I'd debunk your pathetic attempt at revisionism piece by piece, but frankly, it's not even worth taking the time. Turn off the Glenn Beck and pick up a history book. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"This user identifies as a liberal." - Why am I not surprised. It's the liberal agenda to paint Nazism as right-wing when it clearly is not. So keep on with your 'fascist' control of this page while multiple users including myself complain about this "far-right" falsehood. I suggest you read up and get informed: http://www.stephenhicks.org/publications/nietzsche-and-the-nazis/ I have lost faith in wikipedia as a non-biased source of information because of people like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.137 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You really should learn how to make a case before spouting off nonsense. You don't just say, "Here! Read this book!" You say, "In this book, such-and-such says that blah-blah-blah, and here's my citation." Your thesis is absurd, and that's why you can't defend it....especially when you find yourself on the OPPOSITE side of the most learned and respected historians in the world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There are complaints about this phrase all over this page and it should be amended. At the very least it should say something like "whether Nazism is considered right or left is debatable" because there are numerous scholars that say it is center or left of center. But since you clearly have a political agenda you will keep promoting this falsehood so that leftist at political rallies can draw little Hitler mustaches on pictures of any political candidate they don't like. The agenda is very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.137 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "falsehood," and all of the "complaints" are from anonymous users like you, and do not use any scholarly citations to back them up. My "political agenda" is to keep uneducated people from promoting loony revisionist conspiracy theories like yours. And are you really going to try to claim that Right-Wingers never put "little Hitler mustaches" on the pictures of Liberal politicians? Your agenda is not backed up by facts, so you continue to complain about other peoples' agendas. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I will just use more reliable sources (than Wikipedia) to get my information. Like these who do not call Nazism "far right":

http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/nazism.html

http://www.history.co.uk/encyclopedia/nazi-party.html

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nazism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nazism

Wikipedia is too biased, I will no longer use it.