Talk:Socialist Unity Party of Germany

"Unified Socialist Party of Germany" vs. "Socialist Unity Party of Germany"

In my point of view is the tanslation of "Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands" with "Socialist Unity Party" misleading - "United Socialist Party" would be more appropriate...

Citius Altius Fortius 21:24, 04 Jul 2005 (CEST)

The term Einheitspartei can as well be considered in the way, that the party's will was to fight for a reunification, as in the way, that the Party is the united party of the socialist movement of Germany. --134.2.223.216 7 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Would someone please explain to me how "Unified Socialist Party" is the more correct English translation of Sozialistische Einheitspartei? Not only is "Socialist Unity Party" the literal translation from German into English, it also makes (at least to me) a lot more sense, since one of the main ideas the SED attempted to project was (through its name) the unity of German socialists - the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) - following the years of disunity, turmoil and conflict during the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. The KPD, by the way, began with a faction of former SPD members such as Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.

Perhaps of greatest importance is that I cannot locate a single reference work that translated Sozialistische Einheitspartei into English as "Unified Socialist Party." However, there are plenty of references to "Socialist Unity Party," including official German government websites (example here) and in English-language publications published by the GDR government and the SED itself. I invite anyone reading this to provide me with an example to refute this.--Cvieg (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On 18 January 2008, user:Portim edited this article using the phrasing "Unified Socialist Party" in place of "Socialist Unity Party." I posted a response (and request) on his talk page on 21 January 2008. As of this date, user:Portim has not responded to my post. I have therefore reverted his edit of this article to my previous edit (dated 13 January 2008). I repeat my invitation for anyone to provide me with a recognized example that uses the translation "Unified Socialist Party" if they wish to challenge the generally accepted translation of "Socialist Unity Party."--Cvieg (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is not which translation makes more sense but which is the usual translation in English-speaking countries. The "Einheit" in SED indeed means that it portrayed itself as a reunifaction of the two branches of German's labour parties that got separated in 1917. Hence the handshake symbol. Hence, "Unified Socialist Party" makes more sense, as it is "Einheitspartei" not "Partei der Sozialistischen Einheit". However, as I said, what English speakers use is what counts. Deposuit (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

Ugh. That image is ever so slightly (well, about 10 times) too large. -- Morwen.

Fixed - reduced from 1436px wide to 300px (on the page) and 750 px (larger version). --rbrwr

Merge into Left Party (Germany)

Shouldn't this article be merged into Left Party (Germany)? If PDS was the direct legal succession of SED, then there should only be one article for the entire history of the party. --Soman 01:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The PDS is the successor of the SED in the end. This article is about the party that ruled alone, so I think there is no need for a merger --SoWhy 19:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To merge is out of the question I think. the PDS article would be overwieghted without a reason.--Constanz - Talk 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SEDIIIparteitag.jpg

Image:SEDIIIparteitag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Idol-sed.jpg

Image:Idol-sed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

border shootings

is there a reason this is not mentioned at all in here? After all, this party is responsible for it.

11th congress

I can read the following in the paragraph talking about the 11th congress:

The eleventh Congress, held 17–21 April 1986 and lasted until June 5, 1999, unequivocally endorsed the SED and Honecker, whom it confirmed for another term as party head.

What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.22.67 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dissolved?

The infobox says the party was dissolved in 1990.

Was it really ever dissolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuclanus (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No. It was renamed in 1990. In recent years it merged with another group but in 1990 it was merely renamed. Deposuit (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

it was renamed in December of 1989 from Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED) to Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands – Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (SED-PDS) and on January 4th 1990 it was again renaimed in Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS) 78.42.252.102 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The PDS changed its name again in 2005 to "Die Linkspartei.PDS" and then merged in 2007 with a party called Wahlalternative für Arbeit und soziale Gerechtigkeit (WASG) to "Die LINKE", which is a currently active and relevant political party in Germany. The PDS was the direct successor of the SED, quite a few of the current members of the Left were members of the SED in the German Democratic Republic, for example Gregor Gysi or Sahra Wagenknecht. The information in the article should be changed, because it suggests an official dissolution in 1990 which never took place. On the other hand, when changing the article, it should be taken into account that the orthodox socialists and "far left" are only one or two groups among others within the party, a lot of members support reform ideas and cooperation with other parties. It is an object of discussion in Germany "how much SED" there is still in the Left and whether the party is "electable". Some information in English here: http://www.thelocal.de/20130916/51939 ; more detailed, but in German here: http://www.bpb.de/politik/grundfragen/parteien-in-deutschland/42127/die-linke --Chitarra56 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing Political Position

Whoever keeps deleting the "Far-Left" label from the Political Position slot needs to stop. The SED was a far left party; few--if any--historians will dispute that. The political position refers to the position relative to the international political spectrum, not the local one, so stop using that argument. 107.77.68.122 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this is a content question, not one of vandalism. Accusing other users of vandalism in case of content disputes is not helpful or constructive.

In communist-led single-party states (or de facto single-party states without real political competition like East Germany), a left-right spectrum that we know from Western-style pluralistic liberal democracies did not exist. "Far-left" or "far-right" denotes parties that fundamentally challenge the current system. Per definition, ruling parties in communist states of course did not challenge the system in which they ruled. In fact, they ruled the system. They even were identic with the system. Describing them as "far-left" or "far-right" is totally unsuitable. Parties like the SED or the CP of the Soviet Union did not want to change the system at all, they wanted to maintain the system in which they ruled by any means. In this regard, they actually were very conservative (conservative of that system).

Applying the standards of a Western multiparty system and claiming it was international is inadequate. It is not international. It does not apply to China (the most populous country in the world), it did not apply to the Soviet Union (one of two super powers during the Cold War) and its satellite states (including East Germany), it does not apply to Arabic absolute monarchies, it does not apply to the Iranian theocracy, it does not apply to single-party dictatorships in developing countries. It only applies to Western multiparty democracies, that are only a minority of countries globally.

In East Germany, the SED was in the centre of power for 40 years, not on the margin. In that system, being an SED member was totally accepted and even expected if you wanted to make a career in the public sector. (While being a member of a far-left or far-right party in a multiparty system is usually disfavoured by the majority and often an obstacle to a civil service career.) Being against the SED was considered extreme and anti-system. The civil rights activists who challenged the SED rule were considered radicals (not just by the rulers but also by many ordinary citizens who had come to terms with the ruling system). The SED had conservative and progressive members and lots of opportunistic members that did not care a lot about ideology, but rather about their careers. Far-left means promoting radical change, the SED was strongly against radical change.

There were no parties to the right of the SED (that you might consider centrist or rightist, if you assume that the SED was far-left). All parties in East Germany supported the "Real socialism" of that time. All parties accepted the "leading role" of the SED. They had to, because they were satellite parties of the SED. LDPD, CDU, NDPD were no real liberal, Christian democratic or national conservative centre or centre-right parties as they exist in Western democracies. They were all aligned with the SED and tried to win support of the middle-class for the SED-led state. So the SED had no real opposition from either the left or the right. It controlled the whole political spectrum of East Germany.

Moreover, you have not cited a single reliable source that would describe the SED as far-left. Per WP:Verifiability every piece of information that is not supported by reliable sources may be contested by other users and removed if no references are provided. --RJFF (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, consequently I would not consider the NSDAP of the period in which it ruled (1933–45) far-right. The case is different however, because the NSDAP worked as one of many parties in the multiparty democratic period of 1918–33. In that period it was commonly considered far-right. --RJFF (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RJFF sums up the issue quite well. 'Left' and 'Right' positions are not absolutes, but varies in different contexts. Whilst by no means a fringe party in East Germany, if we see Europe as a whole during the Cold War SED was part of the mainstream left tendency. The contemporary far-left, that emerged out of the protest movements of 1968, was actually represented in East Germany, through underground groups. For a period of time the KPD/ML was the sole organized opposition in East Germany. --Soman (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello @TiltuM: Please join the discussion rather than reverting against consensus. --RJFF (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Electoral history", number of seats

The numbers of seats in the "electoral history" table are inaccurate. The SED had not only the 100/110/127 seats assigned to its own slate. Most of the deputies of "mass organisations"—FDGB (53–68 seats), FDJ (29–40), DFD (29–35), Kulturbund (18–22)—were SED members as well. So in fact, the number of SED members in the People's Chamber was much higher than indicated in the table. I am afraid the design of the table is based on a misunderstanding of the political system of East Germany and the role of parties and "elections" in that system which differs wildly from the one in Western multiparty democracies. --RJFF (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Far-left position

Hi everyone! I read previous talk about position of the party. But my opinion is, that ideology of party was far-left, so I don't see any problem in describing party's position as far-left. Ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism, Communism, Stalinism... are far-left and thats a fact. Your opinion? Kind regards AK2468 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

yea definitely far left. Has it been something else before? Karttapelimies (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Some users have always been deleting that particular part. AK2468 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)