Talk:Strasserism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-semitism/finance capitalism contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Rursus why are you working on an article which ideology you barely understand Mynamz (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The mention of National Bolshevism was added to the article on 30 November 2006, in this edit by , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Re: National Bolshevism mention in article 

message: Can we add Strasserism to Category:Left-wing nationalism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcisawesomeguy (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Left-wing nationalist? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti Semetic? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  And what did I just said? I think I interpreted  to mean that it was a variant of Nazism and that my change in  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  made it clear it was a Nazi ideology and that there was no need to specify that . Either way, what about the rest of my edits?--82.54.10.243 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further Reading Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to his article in the Who's Who in Nazi Germany, he was a lifelong anti-Semite. 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)
thread_title:  Why doesn't this article recognize that Otto wasn't an anti semite like his brother 

message: 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  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  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)
thread_title:  Problems with the article