Talk:Strasserism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-semitism/finance capitalism contradiction[edit]

In the introductory passage the article states "Strasserism...particularly hostile to an anti-semitic interpretation of finance capitalism". In the Strasserism section it refers to an "opposition to "Jewish finance capitalism" and "This populist and anti-Semitic form of anti-Capitalism". The first section indicates it is opposed to anti-semitism, the second that it is anti-semitic. Which is correct? Should, for instance, the first passage read "particularly anti-semitic in its hostility to finance capitalism", "particularly hostile to finance capitalism from an anti-semitic interpretation of (the control thereof(?))" or the like? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, missed that bit - good call. Indeed it should have been hostile from an anti-semitic basis (the whole 'capitalism as a tool for Jewish world domination' palaver) and I have rectified this. Sorry about taking a while but I haven't been to this entry in ages. Keresaspa (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that Strasserist "antisemitism" is a misnomer. Strasserism was anti-jewish so far as a foreign cultural factor as judaism would be unacceptable, and that jews should be forcibly converted to Christianity and the German nation, or loose most of their civil rights, while antisemitism use to refer to a racism that regards jews as of "inferior genetic value". I think that Strasserism was culturally intolerant to any deviations, disregarding "genetics" (or "race" issues) as irrelevant. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it! I got it wrong. Antisemitism cannot be considered purely racist, acc2 the article on Mein Kampf, but could as well be interpreted as a rejection of "jewish" ideas. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I think this article could benefit from more detailed outline of economic program of strasserism, because now it looks like "they are just another nazi that don't wanna look nazi but they are still nazi". Like, maybe more details in this place: "Otto, meanwhile, continued to expand his argument, calling for the break-up of large estates and the development of something akin to a guild system and the related establishment of a Reich cooperative chamber to take a leading role in economic planning." RlyechDweller (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they proponed a feudal economic system, but kings and nobility were to be replaced by the nazi party which were to be ruling absolutely without any democratical election. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why all this guesswork? If people care enough about this to edit the article and discuss it here, why don't they take the time to read some of Otto Strasser's writings, e.g. Hitler and I or Germany Tomorrow. As for the statement that "kings and nobility were to be replaced by the nazi party which were to be ruling absolutely without any democratical election", this is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.245 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rursus why are you working on an article which ideology you barely understand Mynamz (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

add socialism portal[edit]

a strong critique of capitalism and framed this in the demand for a more "socialist-based" approach to economics. would this article be a good place to add the socialism portal? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
any reason? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought simplicity would imply an emphatic denial. Evidently not.
How about Strasserism having nothing whatsoever to do with socialism and instead being a branch, like Hitlerism, of German fascism's root in Federism. One used fascism as an excuse for anti-semitism, one used anti-semitism as an excuse for fascism. Strasserism is a capitalist system that creates an artificial strand of "Jewish capitalism" to set itself up in opposition to, whilst at the same time remaining a thoroughly capitalist system itself. There is nothing socialist about Strasserism, beyond stealing its clothes with its name and some crude "bread and circuses" populism to win support.
Sadly this same trick seems to be being played again today by the fascists of the Third Position. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a source for your claims? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to describe it as Socialism, then you get to do the legwork and have to prove your case. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice soapbox you're climbing there. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
would you agree Strasserism is anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a revelatory fact for you about extreme politicians: they lie, they misuse words.
The Strassers both began through the Freikorps. Hello? You think that's a hotbed of Socialism?
Germany, with its important mittelstand, is a fertile ground for selling a political party with Feder's trick. A party that is still pro-capitalist can advertise itself as anti-capitalist by creating an arbitrary distinction into "good" and "bad" capitalism and demonstrating how strongly it is against the "bad" capitalism. As Germany had (and still has) such an important basis in what was seen as the good capitalism, their obvious policies didn't create too many enemies - mayors and local businessmen could still tolerate and fund them at the grass roots, even if it led to heated dinner parties with the Junkers. A similar approach works in the US too, where an orator can be against "Wall St" whilst still advocating "The American Dream", despite both being strongly capitalist ideologies. It's less effective in the UK, at least since the Great War, as it would then leave itself with few well-heeled friends to draw on for support.
Feder and Hitler saw the international Jewish cabal as the root of the problem, and thus finance capitalism to be bad as a consequence. The Strassers, particularly Gregor, saw finance as the root evil and thus anti-semitism to be a consequence of that. Gregor was certainly to the left of the others (within this narrow enclave of crazed ultranationalist madmen), but that's still a long walk from socialism. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
worker-based form of National Socialism, from the article. according to your analysis the preceding is incorrect? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really think National Socialism was Socialist, do you?
National Socialism was worker-based fascism. Bread and circuses, with more guns on that bread than butter, and throwing Jews to the lions in the circus rather than Christians. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes i do. Nazism is a genuine socialist movement, Hayak, awarded nobel prize and medal from the president, sounds reliable to me. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Hayak? Do you mean Hayek? He was fond of throwing the word "socialism" (small s) around to mean almost anything that wasn't a despotic feudal system, particularly in a context of freeing the middle classes from a perpetual tithed bondage to large rentier estates (not too disimilar to Gregor Strasser's views). This is still a very long way from Socialism (capitalised). In particular, he didn't give a damn about a working class or proleteriat. We can probably say that Karl Marx, Strasser, Hitler and Gandhi all thought that the proleteriat should all have access to motherhood, apple pie and cholera-free drinking water, but that doesn't make them political bedfellows. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i like where your head is, i tried the same tactic separating big L and small l libertarian with no luck. should you have better success, i will gladly add whichever S or s portal is appropriate. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You very obviously have no idea of where my head is. I feel like I'm trying to explain politics to my cat (Cats, not having opposable thumbs, always fail to comprehend Marxist theories on the value of collaborative labour). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
instead of herding cats, why not simply refute the source(hayek) with a conflicting source or provide a wp:policy for excluding the socialism portal? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is many years late, but I thought it important for posterity: Socialism is defined as the common ownership of the means of production. Nazism, therefore, was never socialist, by definition. You want a source? How's Marx himself? If you want to discuss socialism, you must be at least familiar with the concepts outlined in Kapital vol. 1. If you actually believe that nazism is a form of socialism, then we're starting at the very beginning with your education, honestly. Googling "What is socialism" and "what is capitalism" is probably your best bet. In any event, relying on Hayek for your worldview is laughable at best and dangerous at worst. Hayek peddles in delusion. If you're actually relying on Austrian economists for your political and economic ideas, you're going to really struggle to understand the world around you. That may sound harsh, but if you take the work of Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, etc. is anything but a sad, dangerous joke, then you simply do not belong in a serious discussion about politics. Yes. It is that bad.72.181.99.6 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to ask people what they believe. TFD (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the article currently contains the text, "anti-capitalist", which agrees with the "socialism" part of National Socialism. since Strasserism is a "strand" of such, it is socialist as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your simplistic analysis based on nothing more than word-matching has no place in any credible encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous editors have responded to Darkstar1st's comments over numerous talk pages. He is using original research to promote fringe theories and wasting the time of other editors. TFD (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although national socialism is doubtless a form of socialism, it not a part of the general socialist movement, and as such doesn't really belong in the socialism portal. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"national socialism is doubtless a form of socialism "
Well I doubt it for one. You appear to be sharing Darkstar's same OR POV. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open, i hear your point. what confused me were the other forms of socialism with far less notability, are included in the portal. perhaps i could read more about general vs other in "portaldom", where did you find the guidelines? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No guidelines, just common sense. Stop trying to write socialists on the nose what they are supposed to think. It doesn't work. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization into Category:Socialism[edit]

Does the article belong in this cat?

Strasserism, and Federism, aren't socialist. Or at least, they're neither good examples of socialism nor examples of good socialism. They are (I think we can all agree) anti-capitalist in at least some aspects, and they have also been presented as "socialism" historically, whether by genuine intent or as a cynical ploy.
As to whether this should be categorized, I find myself agreeing more with Motorizer's view, despite being the first to revert his removal. Per comments above, I have previously disagreed with Darkstar1st that Strasserism was a form of socialism and should be added to the portal for it.
To clarify my own view here, I don't see that Strasserism is socialist. Thus it shouldn't be added to the portal, a portal who's purpose I see as "If you wish to learn what Socialism is, begin by reading here". On the other hand, Strasserism is what, "put the word Socialism into National Socialism". Without being Socialism, I see it as having an important need for inclusion in any overall coverage of Socialism through the 20th century, right or wrong. Thus it should be categorized.
Note that Wikipedia categorization isn't defining as an ontology (it doesn't mean that we claim Strasserism is Socialist). Categorization under MediaWiki is merely a convenient navigation structure. We no more imply membership here than we would by cross-categorization between Hitler, Ribbentrop, Stalin and their pact, as if they implied political commonality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
on socialism: social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy...differing in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.
on Strasserism, mass-action and worker-based form of National Socialism, particularly hostile to finance capitalism...Strasser became a strong advocate of the socialist... strong action to tackle poverty and should seek to build working class support...involved in the creation of the National Socialist Program of 1920, both called on the party to commit to breaking the shackles of finance capital...the break-up of large estates and the development of something akin to a guild system and the related establishment of a Reich cooperative chamber to take a leading role in economic planning. contrast the difference in the two passages lest ye not find any. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are used in order to help readers find articles about their area of interest. Presumably people who use the Socialism category want to find articles about socialism, while people who want to find articles about fascism would use the fascism category. Since socialism is one of the major ideologies in the modern world, one would expect that every political article would have something to do with socialism (e.g., the New Deal was socialist, Obama is a socialist, the income tax, women's liberation, school busing, Hollywood, atheism is socialism). And if something has no trace of socialism, then it is anti-socialist and should be included anyway. Why not categorize all articles as socialism by default? Darkstar1st, how does rogernomics fit in with your pre-comceived views of socialism? TFD (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that anti-socialism should be categorized under socialism, unless it was perhaps an article for Suppression of Socialism in Elbonia that makes a direct reference. However Strasserism is more than this - it was portrayed as "socialism" by some groups in '30s Germany. Whilst we might not agree with this, it does (I would contend) form part of the historical coverage of Socialism. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subsidies to many industries, notably agriculture, were removed or significantly reduced, as was tariff protection. The marginal tax rate was halved over a number of years from 66% to 33%, Rogernomics Darkstar1st (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as socialist by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach? Every U.S. government of the 20th century, with a few exceptions from the 1920s and 1980s has been "portrayed as "socialism" by some groups". Darkstar1st, the definition of rogernomics contradicts your definition of socialism. TFD (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
both definitions were copied from wp Darkstar1st (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you are aware, Wikipedia articles are written by editiors and may contain inaccuracies and are not reliable sources for other articles. Rogernomics was a set of policies carried out by socialists in New Zealand. TFD (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nazism[edit]

Regarding these edits: [1][2][3]:

The article is in Category:Neo-Nazi concepts, which is in Category:Neo-Nazism, which is in Category:Nazism, thus the article does not need to be directly in Category:Nazism, because it is already indirectly in it. Quoting WP:SUBCAT:

... an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. ... a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category ...

None of the exceptions described in SUBCAT apply here. If you think I've misinterpreted SUBCAT, please point out exactly how. If you think one or more categories should be non-diffusing or all-inclusive, then update those categories with the appropriate hatnote. If you disagree with SUBCAT, please raise the matter at WT:CAT. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If editing could be carried out on on such a simplistic basis, it could be done by 'bots and there would be no need for human editors.
SUBCAT has always been poorly worded on this. Why should categories not duplicate subcategories? It doesn't make this clear, thus it is prone to misinterpretation, as here.
The reason for removing a supercat is when that supercat is already logically implied by the subcat.
If this is not the case, the supercat still has value and should be retained.
Here, Strasserism is part of both "classical" 1930s German Nazism and also modern alt-right groups. I wouldn't say neo-nazi, because it is usually being used by a far-right group as some sort of serious political basis for the same far-right politics, but without adopting a Hitlerian nazi guise. The "nice neo-nazis" of today.
This modern usage does not adequately imply the 1930s context for Strasserism, as some of the original theories of 1930s German National Socialism. We should preserve that connotation, as it is important. Perhaps you see this as tautological, but that's the cost of using MediaWiki categorization and pretending that it is an expressive and unambiguous ontological descriptive language.
A further reason for retaining categorization can be simply navigational. Should members be in a cat because readers navigating that cat will expect it to be there? This too is a good reason for not removing inclusions per simple SUBCAT. I see that you have removed Far-right subcultures from Category:Far-right politics, which simply acts to break a valid navigation path from that category. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Related reversions, which also refer to this discussion: [4][5][6][7].)
thus it is prone to misinterpretation, as here
SUBCAT is not prone to misinterpretation in this case - the category tree is well defined, the sentence that I quoted above from SUBCAT is unambiguous.
It's possible that the existing category tree is wrong - for example, perhaps Category:Neo-Nazism should not be a subcategory of Category:Nazism - if that is the case, then please fix the tree.
I see that you have removed Far-right subcultures from Category:Far-right politics
Yes because Far-right subcultures is in Category:Neo-Nazism, which is in Category:Far-right politics - again I refer you to the unambiguous instruction from SUBCAT that I quoted above.
WP:SUBCAT is a well-established and generally accepted guideline. If you disagree with it, then raise a proposal at WT:CAT to change it. Otherwise, we should follow it.
Mitch Ames (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point of the editor who is wanting to add the article to both the parent category and a sub-category. If I read him right he's saying:
  1. The tree Category:Nazism -> Category:Neo-Nazism -> Category:Neo-Nazi concepts is fine and logical; don't have an issue with that.
  2. And Strasserism was definitely a strain of Nazism, in 1930s Germany, and certainly belongs in the category Category:Nazism.
  3. But Strasserism is also a strain of neo-nazism in later times, and certainly belongs in a neo-Nazi category such as Category:Neo-Nazi concepts.
Well, how do you answer that? I understand the logic behind WP:SUBCAT, but the same you're telling the editor "Well, decide. Remove it from Category:Nazism (and so people looking for it from that angle won't find it) or from Category:Neo-Nazi concepts (and so people looking for it from that angle are won't find it). To follow our rules we've got to stymie some group of readers, it's just a matter of picking which one". Do we really want to be thinking like this?
We could split the article, but that doesn't seem called for here. So, we have a conflict, and we have to decide what we're going to do: follow our rule, or serve the readers. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... Remove it from Category:Nazism (and so people looking for it from that angle won't find it) or from Category:Neo-Nazi concepts (and so people looking for it from that angle are won't find it)...
If they know how categorization in Wikipedia works they will find it, because they will drill down into the subcategories, just as they would do for any of the many other articles that are in sub-categories of Category:Nazism and Category:Neo-Nazism but not directly in those categories.
.. follow our rule, or serve the readers ...
The basic difference of opinion here (whether articles should be in both parent and child category) could apply equally to almost all articles in Wikipedia, because the vast majority of them are in child categories of something. There are some cases where it is best to ignore a rule, but this is not such a case. This article (and the others that were reverted at the same time) are not particularly "special" for any reason. What this implies is that if the rule is wrong (as Andy Dingley and Herostratus state or imply) we should fix the rule, not just ignore it in this case - because if you're going to ignore it here, then for the same reasons you would ignore it on almost any article.
As I previously suggested, if you think the rule is wrong, raise the matter at WT:CAT and propose changing it. Otherwise, unless there is a specific reason why we should ignore the rule in this case, we should follow the existing unambiguously stated guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with some of the comments above that Strasserism is both a Nazi and neo-Nazi concept. Thus, the "neo-Nazi" category is too narrow. If two cannot be kept, then I suggest moving 'up' to the Nazism category. But my preference would be to keep both. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strasserism is both a Nazi and neo-Nazi concept ...
It might be worth editors stating explicitly whether they agree that Category:Neo-Nazism is correctly in Category:Nazism. If that inclusion is correct then anything in Category:Neo-Nazism is already in Category:Nazism so "keeping both" is not necessary. Again I refer you to the unambiguous guideline quoted at the start of this discussion, in particular the words "without duplication". Of course if Neo-Nazism is not a subcategory of Nazism, then some (but not all, because presumably Category:Neo-Nazi concepts is a subcategory of Category:Neo-Nazism) of the problem disappears.
Yes it does. However, IMO "neo-nazism" seems like a logical subcategory of "nazism". And if you separate them them people reading an article in the one category will never find the articles in the other (IMO related) category.
The points above are well taken. I understand the fear that simply overthrowing the current SUBCAT rule (politically impossible anyway) would eventually lead to a dog's breakfast of too much of duplicating categories in articles because of the way people roll -- "ooh I'll add this subcat too".
On the other hand, rules are imperfect and have downsides, SUBCAT no exception, and are best with a little lubrication -- that is, some leeway in adjudicating particular cases. This case might call for a little leeway. (And re "If they know how categorization in Wikipedia works they will find it, because they will drill down into the subcategories" well, first of all, what if they don't? We mustn't expect readers learn our organizational schemes in order to access material. It should be easy and intuitive.)
I don't know the answer, and we're going to have to live with some imperfection here. What I haven't heard so far is "Compared to having it in both parent and subcat, having it only in the subcat will actually enhance the experience of the reader in this particular case because _________". What goes in the blank? Is it confusing to the reader to have both, or what? Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you haven't heard "following WP:SUBCAT will help the reader in this particular case because ...", is that we have guidelines so that we don't have to justify every decision on every article. The guideline that has community consensus is clear and unambiguous: "as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it". Generally the onus is on those who want to ignore the guideline to justify it - ie "we should ignore the rule for this article because ...". Some editors have stated that they think the guideline is wrong, but there's nothing in the arguments that's specific to this article - it's all general, eg "the reader might not look in subcategories".
As I have previously suggested, if you think the guideline is generally wrong, then propose a change to the guideline rather than just ignoring it. If you think that it's too hard to change the guideline, perhaps that's because the community in general thinks it's a good guideline - and so should follow it. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O I see now that a category like I proposed already exists, namely Category:Nazi Germany. Then the top category should apparently contain articles that are referring to both Nazi Germany and Neo-Nazism, like this article. Category:Nazism is apparently the lowest level possible for this article and it shouldn't be in Category:Neo-Nazism. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames, Herostratus, and Andy Dingley: - Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for my part I'm on board with the notion that Category:Nazism is apparently the lowest level possible for this article. And it is mainly a manifestation of 1930s Germany IMO, other manifestations being less notable. (I earlier argued for an exception being made and including it in both that category and a sub category, which would also be fine with me, but there are downsides to that.) Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the previous discussion.
One could categorize it into 'Nazism' alone. But that's an awfully blunt categorization, and categorization needs to be specific to be useful. Otherwise we just categorize everything into one big undifferentiated blob as 'philosophy', and that's useless. This leads us to (as above) the situation where articles might be categorized into two locations (if both are relevant) even if one is itself a sub-cat of the other. The apparent redundancy is better than the over-simplistic description. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding to {{ping}} ...)
I maintain my opinion that there is no particular reason why this article should not follow WP:SUBCAT. Likewise other related articles previously mentioned [8][9][10][11]. However SUBCAT does allow for exceptions. If the duplication n Nazism and Neo-Nazism is important, then tag Category:Neo-Nazism (and others if appropriate) as a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}, then it would be obvious to editors that the duplication is intended. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the category "Nazism" is broad rather than blunt. So it's OK to put something that has broad use in a broad category. Take for example the article Swastika. It goes in with "Nazism" but also with "Neo-nazism". We wouldn't say "Well, we have to pick one, and 'Nazism' is blunt, so let's be more precise and put it just in 'Neo-nazism'". At least, I hope we wouldn't. For "Swastika" substitute "Strasserism", exact same argument applies. Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't say "Well, we have to pick one ... — WP:SUBCAT says exactly that: "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it". It allows for exceptions, including non-diffusing categories which "should be identified with a template on the category page" eg {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}.
Once again I ask that we simply follow the well-defined guidelines of WP:CAT. Or if editors disagree with those guidelines - and apparently there are a few of you - then raise the disagreement on WT:CAT and propose a change to the guidelines. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, fine. Category:Nazism is as as low down in the category hierarchy as possible. Right? We're all in agreement on that, so we're all set?
Or unless Category:Neo-Nazism is a non-diffusing category (never heard of that until now). I actually have a little trouble understanding the critera, but could not "subsets which have some special characteristic of interest" apply to the relationship of "Neo-Nazism" to "Nazism"?. So tagging "Neo-Nazism" with a non-duplicating-subcategory tag and then putting Strasserism in both of the suggested categories could be another solution? Herostratus (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... a non-diffusing category (never heard of that until now) ... — It would probably be helpful if editors discussing the merits of specific categorization issues actually read the guidelines that describe Wikipedia's categorization scheme. Wikipedia:Categorization § Non-diffusing subcategories existed before this discussion was started. Even WP:SUBCAT explicitly mentions it.

Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it.

Mitch Ames (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, it would be helpful, but its not always possible. I was made aware of this discussion somehow (bot recruitment or something) and I'm here to contribute my common sense, general understanding of overall procedures, and general experience with Wikipedia to the question at hand. It's not possible to be up on the details of all the sub-rules, there're too many, but besides which some of them are pettifoggery; we are not rule-bound here, and I want to come from first principals, usually "what will best serve the reader".
The original question was "should this article be in a subcategory and its (grand)parent, even though this not usually done"? There're reasonable arguments either way. What I think we shouldn't do is put it in one category and that category be Category:Neo-Nazi concepts rather than Nazism. A reasonable argument for that could be made on that on the be made on the basis of "Well, it's mainly a Neo-Nazi concept". I don't know if I agree that that's true. It's true that a lot of the article is about post-Nazi-Germany developments. On the other hand Strasserism developed in pre-war Germany. The Strassers were Nazis not Neo-Nazis, and they did have followers and acolytes -- Strasserites if you will -- to a degree. Nationalsozialistische Briefe is a Nazi document, not a Neo-Nazi document. So it's arguable.
However, the argument "We must always strive to push categories into the lowest category possible" doesn't really excite me, unless paired with "and this best serves the reader because _________" with cogent and interesting points in the blank.
So anyway, now that I have discovered non-diffusing subcategories, isn't that the ideal solution to our conundrum? The definition of non-diffusing is rather subtle, and to be honest I don't really get why "Toll Bridges in New York City" is non-diffusing while "Bridges over the East River" isn't. But I guess a reasonable case could be made that Neo-Nazism is non-diffusing?
So let's see where we stand. Of the people who have participated here,
  • You want the article to be in one category, and I gather that would be Category:Neo-Nazi concepts.
  • I want the article to be in two categories. I'm not married to that, but if it is one category, I guess it should be Category:Nazism.
  • User:Andy Dingley wants the article to be in two categories.
  • User:K.e.coffman wants the article to be in two categories ("my preference would be to keep both") but if that's not done then "I suggest moving 'up' to the Nazism category".
So you asked, you opened the thread, and while there's not a quorum or anything, the few people who did respond seem to think differently than you on this question. Haven't heard from User:Andy Dingley recently and User:K.e.coffman just dropped in briefly, so I guess it's you and me for now. So for my part I am OK with any of these as the next step:
Sorry, I didn't realise that anything I'd posted earlier was dismissed unless (as some are doing) I simply re-stated the same argument each time they called for another vote. Recently we had reasonable grounds given, by a number of editors, as to why SUBCAT was over-simplistic in cases such as this. But as always with WP, the editor who is simply the most persistent wins. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was dismissed. The article is currently in both categories, and absent any change in the situation I guess it should stay there, since people favor that by 3-1, and there's reasonable arguments on both sides. (2 of the 3 though are reasonably OK with just Castegory:Nazism, in the name of peace and compromise, though.)
But @Andy Dingley:, isn't just putting the non-diffusing tag in the proper place the answer to all our problems and this should satisfy everyone? Do you agree with that? And after all, although what exactly qualifies to be non-diffusing is a bit of head-scratcher to me, doesn't the fact that people want the article to be in both categories pretty much indicate that "Neo-Nazism" is probably non-diffusing? {{ping|[[User:Mitch Ames}}, isn't this right? Herostratus (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with annotating a category as non-diffusing is that that would be an attribute of the category. No-one can really claim that so broadly; the point is that this article's membership of the category is in parallel to its membership of another cat (which happens to be a parent). That implies nothing about the category overall, or the inclusion of other articles in that cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll take your word for it. I myself don't really get why with Category:Bridges in New York City, we say "and some of those are in Staten Island, and that's a diffusing category" and "and some of those are toll bridges, and that's a non-diffusing category". So I'll leave to the experts whether Category:Neo-Nazism is diffusing or non-diffusing. But certainly "Nazism" does not require or even imply the existence of "Neo-Nazism", in the way that "Bridges in X" implies the (logical) existence of "Bridges in sub-territory of X", so...
So if its diffusing, you are saying "Whoa! We have here a very extraordinary situation! A diffusing category where we have articles (or at least one) that nevertheless belongs in it and its parent." What is it about the relationship of Nazism and Neo-Nazism that is so extraordinary, I wonder? I'm honestly asking.
Also... this hasn't been brought up, but on practical grounds, I can very well imagine that after we hash this out, somebody's going to come along in six months and "fix" it; in doing so they'll mean no disrespect to this conversation, but they'll just do it without checking the talk page, thinking that they are tidying. I've done it myself. And if not six months, then some number of years. I can't watch this article forever. I can also certainly image a bot being created to do this. I suppose we could add a <!-- note like this -->, which might help some. So... I wonder if its futile to want to keep any article in a parent and its non-diffusing child, as practical matter. So if adding the non-diffusing tag to Neo-Nazism is aruable and borderling, this would be another reason to do so... Herostratus (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably someone else who has read and followed WP:SUBCAT, in the belief that it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". If the many editors who apparently think SUBCAT is wrong all went to WT:CAT, you could probably raise enough consensus to change it, thus "fixing" the problem in the longer term. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What this discussion shows is that editor Mitch Ames is wrong in his continued edits removing parent cats and his assertions that that he will continue with his deletions as he is just following this category MOS and all the other editors need to be adding the non-diffusing template to categories in order to [maybe] stop him. Meanwhile his destruction continues. Hmains (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, based on a 4-1 agreement to include both the category Nazism and Neo-Nazi concepts (counting User:Hmains as one of the four, I put a note to that effect in the body of the article, and thanks to everyone who participated. Herostratus (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This same reasoning should also apply to many other categories that User:Mitch Ames is intent on deleting for the same unsound reasons Hmains (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorps not ultranationalist[edit]

The Freikorps were not ultranationalist, but anti-socialist/communist.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: National Bolshevism mention in article[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: The NazBol material was uncited and I removed it as an uncontroversial deletion (as is listed in the Refimprove template). BRD is a guideline, and my last revert was to an anonymous editor who undid my edit without any summary. As I've said numerous times, having the NazBol template and section on NazBols in the Strasserism article is historically inaccurate and inappropriate. There are connections, true, between the earliest years of the NazBol movement and Strasserism (mostly the name), but it's wholly inaccurate to say that the Strasser brothers "belong[ed] to National Bolshevism" as the article claims. While the Strasser brothers clung to an anti-capitalist tradition, it was in no form the anticaptialism that Bolsheviks professed. As I've said, the easiest way to consider the matter is that the Strasser brothers were Nazis through-and-through, while National Bolshevism as it was for most of history and today combined Stalinism and Russian ultranationalism. This seems indicative, to me, of a trend on WP of editors (not accusing you) adding dubious information in articles that attempt to prove a connection between Nazism/Fascism and Communism where there isn't one. See the edit history on Giovanni Gentile for a similar conflict. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 17:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of National Bolshevism was added to the article on 30 November 2006, in this edit by @Keresaspa:, so I'm pinging them in case they're still active and wish to comment. It is true that the addition was uncited when added, and continues to be uncited. 11 1/2 years is a long time for something to be in an article without being challenged, but it's also a long time for something to be in an article and not be cited. And, incidentally, the text says that Strasserism is "claimed as belonging to National Bolshevism", not that it is definitively part of it. I have been unsuccesful in a brief attempt to find a source that connects the two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your detective work in the matter. These aren't super high-traffic pages, and the information slides in under the radar. It was much the same at Giovanni Gentile but that had a WorldNetDaily source that was immediately flagged as unreliable. Even with the "claimed," as you noted, the info added provided no indication who made the claim itself which strikes me as unreliable. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reversed my opinion: 11 1/2 years of being unsourced is enough to justify being removed, even if it hadn't been marked as needing a citation. If Keresaspa responds to my ping and e-mail (he's put a "retired" tag on his user page), and provides a source, it can always be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that listing "National Bolshevism" in the "See also" section is legitimate, as they are in some ways related. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing nationalist?[edit]

Can we add Strasserism to Category:Left-wing nationalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcisawesomeguy (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have a source that they were "left-wing nationalists," not just once source that says they were nationalists and another that says the were on the left of the Nazi Party, per synthesis. That might be difficult especially considering that what separates left and right nationalism is whether they consider citizenship to be determined by ethnicity or residence. TFD (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Semetic?[edit]

In Otto Strasser's book "Germany Tomorrow", he condemns antisemitism by pointing to a thing he said in 1926 where he said "Antisemitism is dead, Long live the People" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.140.135 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: what was wrong with my edit? As I have stated:

It's disputed that Stasserism was a distinct form of Nazism. What they wanted was a Nazism that actually kept his National Socialist Program. Its anti-capitalism is also disputed. They hated capitalism because they thought it was "Jewish". Their socialism was a form of fascist corporatism. Just because they spoke of socialism, it doesn't make it true. What matters is what they meant by that, a dirigist, corporatist mixed economy. It's better to use radical. It gives the false impression that those were really left-wing Nazis. Besides, Hitler was called a moderate and was chosen and prefered to what they termed the radical Nazis like Ernst Röhm.

I also saw just discussions above that state that Strasserism is fascist and in no way left-wing, which I agree, so what? I also saw discussions on the Anti-capitalist page and it was decided that only ideologies opposed to capitalism as a whole and not just criticism or a part of it should be considered as such. The page as it stands now it makes it seems like Strasserism is literally left-wing Nazism and anti-capitalist and socialist, despite being a far-right, corporatist fascist ideology. Once again, the so-called left-wing Nazis were just as far-right as the original Nazis; they're left-wing only relative to it, just like democratic socialism is the left-wing of social democracy and the Third Way its right-wing. Social liberalism is the left-wing of liberalism, it doesn't mean it's literally left-wing. Social liberalism is a centrist ideology, it's simply to the left of other liberalism philosophies. It's better to avoid any confusion and actually use moderate and radical when referring to the Nazi Party wings. Beside making more sense, it's also what I have seen used; Hitler was chosen exactly because he was a moderate and was referred to as such. To me, it seems this left-wing Nazis or the left-wing of the Nazi Party is just yet another attempt to characterise Nazis as leftists and socialists and should be avoided; it really never stop.

There're also parts of sourced text that literally support what I'm saying and I didn't add either of them:

However, it is disputed whether Strasserism was a distinct form of Nazism. According to historian Ian Kershaw, "the leaders of the SA [which included Gregor Strasser] did not have another vision of the future of Germany or another politic to propose". The Strasserites advocated the radicalization of the Nazi regime and the toppling of the German elites, calling Hitler's rise to power a half-revolution which needed to be completed.

Strasserism seems to be nothing more than what Nazism originally promised to be; and it was still fascist and corporatist:

The name Strasserism came to be applied to the form of Nazism that developed around the Strasser brothers. Although they had been involved in the creation of the National Socialist Program of 1920, both called on the party to commit to "breaking the shackles of finance capital". This opposition to Jewish finance capitalism, which they contrasted to "productive capitalism”, was shared by Hitler himself, who borrowed it from Gottfried Feder.

This seems to confirm the view that Strasserism's anti-capitalism isn't really anti-capitalism but opposition to "Jewish" capitalism; they have no problem with capitalism as such. Even their economic policies are just one form a corporatist, dirigist, state capitalist mixed economy, which is anything but socialism in any meanigful sense of the word. As I have stated above, just because someone may claim to be anti-capitalist or socialism, it doesn't make it so; what matters is what the words actually mean. Anti-capitalism means anti-Jewish capitalism; socialism means corporatism. As far as I know, that's what fascists always referred to. Pages such as Prussian socialism or yellow socialism are living proofs of this; they aren't really socialist but corporatist; the word socialism is just conflated with and used as a synonym to refer to corporatism. So it wasn't just American right-wingers that conflated socialism with anything, there's a long tradition behind that.

It also makes no sense to say socialist ("However, Strasser soon became a strong advocate of the socialist wing of the party") and then link to Right-wing socialism which actually links to Paternalistic conservatism, which has nothing at all to do with socialism; there's no such thing as right-wing socialism (once again, the socialism used in any case such as this would mean corporatism or state capitalism, which is what German conservatives supported) and the closer thing to a form of right-wing socialism would be social democracy and then again right-wing would only refer relative to the socialist movement as I explained above and not literally. It just further confuses people and make them believe that Nazism is socialism.

While Otto Strasser may not have been antisemitic per the IP above, this page isn't titled Political views of Otto Stasser but Strasserism; and the Strasserist or Strasserite movement is just another fascist, Nazi movement. Strasserites simply believed National Socialism (i.e. National Capitalism/National Corporatism) to be literally and wanted to topple of the German elites to have a true corporatist mixed economy. This is just yet another proof that Nazis didn't purse any left-wing policies in any meaningful way; they pursued the mainstream view of the time. The term privatisation was literally coined to refer to privatisations that underwent the Nazi regime. The so-called Third Position isn't anti-capitalist either. They're just opposed to (neo)liberal/global/Jewish capitalism (which is what they conflates capitalism with so as to appear and pose as anti-capitalists), just like the original Fascists and German fascists like Nazis were, despite in practice adopting classical liberal (in Italy) and privatisation (in Germany) economic policies.

Isn't it true?--82.54.10.243 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your edit is that "Strasserism" isn't a distinct ideology in any way shape or form. It was purely a kind of Nazism. It was not "left-wing". Although it did want to retain the socialist aspects of the 25 Points, it was otherwise just as right-wing as any other Fascist group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what did I just said? I think I interpreted Strasserism [...] is a strand of Nazism to mean that it was a variant of Nazism and that my change in Strasserism [...] is an ideology that calls for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism didn't change that; I didn't mean my change to be interpretrated in a way that make it seems like it isn't a fascist and Nazi ideology. I thought that a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism made it clear it was a Nazi ideology and that there was no need to specify that Strasserism [...] is a strand of Nazism. Either way, what about the rest of my edits?--82.54.10.243 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading Section[edit]

The section on further reading is entirely people on the far right. Can't we get non-fascist biographies of Strasser's life? 100.8.92.169 (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this article recognize that Otto wasn't an anti semite like his brother[edit]

He literally states in his book "Germany Tomorrow" that " Anti-semitism is dead long live the idea of the people"


Mynamz (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to his article in the Who's Who in Nazi Germany, he was a lifelong anti-Semite.[12] Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a publisher of original thought, we can't all read his writings, study his actions and draw conclusions on whether or not he was an anti-Semite. Instead we can only rely on what reliable secondary sources say. If you have a source that says he was not anti-Semitic, please present it. We can't base a claim on one sentence he wrote during WW2 after he defected from Germany. TFD (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the article[edit]

The lead currently says "Strasserism (German: Strasserismus or Straßerismus) is a radical mass action[not verified in body] worker-based tendency within National Socialism, drawing influence from palingenetic ultranationalism and socialist economics". First, "radical mass action worker-based tendency" seems to be POV and not verified. Second, I dispute its influence of 'socialist' economics. Do sources actually say that? Or do they simply advocate a more 'left'-leaning form of fascist corporatism in the form of dirigisme? That they may have advocated planning or even a planned economy does not make them 'socialist' anymore than a planned economy is necessarely socialist; planning has been extensively used during the post-war consensus, in war times and post-war construction by capitalist countries and capitalist countries such as India, Japan and Taiwan made use of five-year plans. I agree with Beyond My Ken that "'Strasserism' isn't a distinct ideology in any way shape or form. It was purely a kind of Nazism. It was not 'left-wing'. Although it did want to retain the socialist aspects of the 25 Points, it was otherwise just as right-wing as any other Fascist group." Yet that does not seem to be clear enough in both lead and body, and indeed seems to follow the Strasserite POV that it was not really another form of Nazism or fascism. Finally, perhaps a distinction should be made between Otto Strasser's Nazi Stasserism and post-Strasser neo-Nazi Strasserism. There are also a few citation needed tags, I hope both you and The Four Deuces can help to improve that and especially that The Four Deuces, with their always good sourcing work, can help us understand what reliable sources actually say about the topic. Davide King (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strasserism&oldid=1216368112"