Talk:Black Front

this is pure insanity

it is a party formed by a radically leaning left member of a socialistic party and it is classified as far-right. are you all insane or do it on purpose promoting stalinist position? and another question do you really think that readers believe your disinformation? shemyaza (against all) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.126.237 (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This is blatantly correct, tried fixing it but it seems the tankies have this page locked down

Why you may ask?

The Black Front, led by Otto Strasser, was strongly opposed capitalism. They criticized the influence of big businesses and believed that capitalism perpetuated economic inequality. Their calls for the redistribution of wealth and resources align with YOUR OWN left-wing economic principles.

Strasser and his followers were vehemently against the bourgeoisie, viewing them as the oppressors of the working class.

The Black Front advocated for a strong social welfare system. They proposed policies aimed at improving the living conditions of the working class and ensuring access to basic necessities.

While the Black Front shared some similarities with the Nazi party in terms of nationalism, they were critical of Adolf Hitler's leadership and the direction the Nazi Party was taking. Their disagreement with the Nazi Party's alignment with big business and the conservative elite underscores their leftist orientation. Theboom999 (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The left-right spectrum is designed to be a simplification, and focusing on one single aspect is over-simplifying something which isn't intended to convey nuance. But more importantly, Wikipedia isn't a platform for publishing original research.

Per Talk:Nazism/FAQ, Wikipedia reflects the majority position, and per that position, this is far-right. Citing Stalinists or tankies is unpersuasive, as it appears to be an attempt to discredit this position by attributing it to a fringe minority. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It'd be really great if the people who keep puffing out there chest and insisting the spinoff Nazis were anything but far-right would come in with sources to try backing their claims. Of course that would require them going against almost literally every scholar on the subject. Docktuh (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations needed

This very interesting article should need some citations. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Strasser's national socialism/bolshevism and "Political position - Far right"?? What a nonsense and disgrace to Strasser! 213.25.24.230 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think National Bolshevism is far-left? That's ridiculous. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read the writings of Otto Strasser, you will find that he advocated a high degree of societal ownership of the means of production, which is the essential tenet of socialism (the US tendency to use "socialist" as a synonym for social-democrat is a recent and deplorable phenomenon). -- Henrik Thiil Nielsen (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

this "henrik thiil nielsen" person is evidently a fascist or at least fascist-sympathetic, and as such should be ignored. strasserism is fascism. the only true socialism is that guided by Marxism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:c481:4640:9db9:2fcb:a5d5:2b48 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I say this as a Marxist myself, this is a No True Scotsman. Docktuh (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly intellectual dishonesty. 2800:A4:2965:9000:894C:8D84:171F:A090 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

He's a Nazi. This discussion needs no continuation. Docktuh (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Strasserists and Black Front were economical left-wing factions of Nazi movement, while Hitler and mainstream were more in to centrism and social-corporativism in economic policies. In terms of very obsolete political analysis, both factions were right-wing in social, cultural and other non-economical affaris. Strasserist/Black Front political position should be syncretic with Far-right in social/cultural/religious/ethnical issues and left-wing in fiscal/economic issues.--78.102.112.124 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

He was the Public Enemy #1 of the Nazis by 1940; previously Einstein had that honor[1] from 1933-1940. Otto was a Nazi until 1930, but ran afoul of Hitler- and had previous made an enemy of some of the most vocal haters of Jews around. Saying "He's a Nazi" is an over-simplification, at best- and a poor way to try shutting down a conversation. I would call him an anti-Nazi, though that too would be an over-simplification. In general, just because a person is part of a group that we don't like doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned or investigated. I would claim it might mean the opposite- and in general the Nazi regime is worth understanding if we seek to not repeat their mistakes.

That last bit is a big, big f'ing deal- at least in the USA. I shouldn't need to remind anyone that half of 'Merica seems super enthusiastic about becoming the new anti-Comintern, and the other seems to approve of the folks who marched on Charlottesville chanting "the Jews will not replace us" by torchlight. "Somebody" once said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy- then as farce. Lets prove him wrong, just this once- if possible. He wouldn't mind.

The interesting and informative parts are where we see people within that regime reject Hitler and also be rejected by him. For instance Pastor Martin Niemoller, who initially supported the movement but then was upset about Hitler challenging convention within the Church; complained about it, and then got 7 years in the camps for vocally opposing Hitler's policies. (He's the "First they came for the socialists.." guy.) From what I can tell, both Martin started out pretty right wing, and then shifted left. Sort of like Francois Mitterrand, who invited the Communist Party into French gov't (where they were rejected by the people.) I would like examples of the right-wing social stance of the Black Front, if anyone has any. The anonymous comment from 78.101.112.124 is very nuanced and truthful, from what I know. That sort of nuance is rare in the USA, where many people equate the Nazis with socialism (really!)- thinking that was the source of their evil ways. Lo and behold, that IP geolocates to the Czech Republic. I don't mean to lecture- mostly what I came here to do is ask where to find more information on this movement and their activities during the 30s.. then I wrote this essay of a comment. My bad. Know Einstein (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Nazis are and always will be economically socialist, from the Hitlerites to the Strasserists, they are a syncretic ideology. I know this because I've gotten this conclusion from primary and secondary sources, both Marxist and non Marxist authors, including the liberal historian.

I suggest you look at ARPLAN.org and Rainer Zitellmanns' Hitlers' National Socialism. 2800:A4:2965:9000:894C:8D84:171F:A090 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

OK so you've included a take within a take, so you'll need many, many citations for that to be taken seriously. Docktuh (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"radical" and "left" wing of the NSdAP

Surely, no one can seriously consider the "non-fascist, non-SA"-wing of the NSdAP as less "radical" in any perceivable way than the "core fascists" around Röhm and Strasser!!! The fairy tale of the "left wing" of the NSdAP also seems to stem from cold war rhetoric when fascism was tried to be grouped with socialism.

Fascist and Falangist ideologies are not grouped as "socialist", but "third way" in this same Wikipedia. Strasser (and Röhm) followed an anti-capitalist, collectivist ideology, that was neither "left" nor "socialism" (even as they tried to "sell" it differently - it's a splendid idea to not assume the "sales points" of fascists!!!).

Strasser and Röhm wanted a "social revolution", but by no means a "socialist" or "left" one. The Franco regime in Spain under the Falange is about the "purest" realisation of this, and no people in their right minds will hold the Falange was "left-wing"! --Hornsignal (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dates

The citation for Strasser's being kicked out out of the party says he was kicked out on July 4, 1930 and formed the Black Front six weeks later. I haven't been able to track down a date for it's formation. James Galloway (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the first volume of Kershaw's Hitler, p. 327, Otto Strasser and his followers left the NSDAP on July 4, 1930. They would clearly have been thrown out if they hadn't taken the initiative, but they left before they could be "kicked out" (is that really a term to use on Wikipedia?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryfunk (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Confused about the classification of Strasserism as a Far-Right ideology

As a person who is interested in (not to be confused with "a follower of") the ideological beliefs of Otto Strasser, I find myself confused to why he is classified as far-right here. It is of course correct that he stemmed from the far-right national socialist party in Germany (which is far-right, unlike some people think.) but the Nazi Party did not believe in one single thing - there were different factions in it, much like modern parties such as how the Southern Democrats were highly conservative compared to the Northern Democrats in the United States.

The Manifesto of the Black Front (I've sourced this from arplan.org) written by Otto Strasser implies a call for the abolition of private property within its fourth paragraph. This is most obviously an economically left-wing view as opposed to the view of the Hitlerite faction of the NSDAP which, as shown by its actions during its rule of the German state, privatised business and clamped down on trade union power through the forced conversion of them into one national trade union.

The Manifesto of the Black Front also declares: "This revolution is socialist." - it denies the sanctity of private ownership of land, natural resources, and the means of production. The common ownership of the means of production (communism) or state ownership (as seen in Soviet-style state capitalism) is not a far-right view, these views were shared by known supporters of communism such as Karl Marx. Whilst the revolution is also nationalistic, this is not tied to its economic views, it is tied to his social views, which are most definitely right of the spectrum.

I believe that like with National Bolsheviks or the Crusade of Romanianists the Black Front should be declared as a Syncretic movement (Economically left-wing or far-left, socially far-right.), rather than the current, arguably name-biased approach which simply names it far-right.

Would be happy to hear any feedback to this, thank you. 2A00:23C6:FC25:E801:B0E3:8042:46FB:46B2 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

References