Talk:Economics of fascism/Archive 1

POV

The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII. Your definition of economic fascism is supported strictly by libertarian sources, and it is so broad that any kind of mixed economy - anything short of laissez-faire or full central planning - would fall under it. You are essentially saying that a mixed economy is a form of economic fascism, when the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that it is in fact the other way around: economic fascism is a particular kind of mixed economy. In addition, there are no self-described "economic fascists" and fascism itself never placed too much emphasis on economic policy. I see no reason why this article needs to exist. Information on the economic aspects of fascism can and should be included in the main article. At the very most, this article should be a redirect to corporatism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does the article say that a mixed economy would be economic fascism? The definition clearly says economic fascism is an "economic system," and notice it says "heavily regulated." And it doesn't matter if the definition is only supported by libertarian sources. Unless you can find definitions from non-libertarian sources then you are unjustified in your complaint. It could be that only economic libertarians use the term. And about redirecting to corporatism ...corporatism is just one aspect of economic fascism. There definitely needs to be an article dedicated to the economics of fascism. RJII 05:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition may say that economic fascism is an "economic system", but it does not explain what separates "economic fascism" from all other economic systems that involve a combination of private ownership and government regulation. In fact, the definition implies that any and all systems involving such a combination are somewhat fascist - an extraordinary claim which is absurd at worst and held by a fringe minority at best. Under such a definition, Louis XIV and Julius Caesar were fascists, along with pretty much all other national leaders in the 4800 years of history before the idea of exclusively private (laissez-faire) or exclusively public economies was invented. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It implies no such thing. The essence of economic fascism is heavy government control over privately-owned means of production. This differs from other economic systems, such as capitalism, where the means of production are both privately owned and privately operated. And, it differs from socialism where the means of production are state-owned. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

How heavy is "heavy government control", and what kind of control are we talking about? There are still thousands of pre-modern rulers who imposed heavy control over their economies. Should we count them all as fascists? Was Ancient Egypt fascist? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When does a mound become a hill? I don't know. At some point control becomes "heavy." At what point is it ok to call a market a free market; at what level of regulation does it no longer make sense to call it a free market? These kinds of questions can only be left to personal judgement. At some point government control is so heavy-handed that it's economic fascism. RJII 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The consensus opinion among non-libertarians is that there is no such thing as economic fascism, because fascist economic policies were by no means unique enough to constitute a separate economic system in their own right. If only economic libertarians use the term, then the article should mention the fact that the existence of "economic fascism" is a libertarian belief. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned that already. I said that it's mostly economic libertarians that use the term. You're treating laissez-faire advocacy as if it's a fringe view, but economic libertarianism is mainstream in intellgentsia today. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a fringe view. Libertarians get about 1% of the vote in the US. Firebug 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I said in "intelligentsia." And, were talking about economic libertarianism here. Those who favor de-regulation and privatization are economic libertarians. That view is definitely not confined to the US Libertarian Party. RJII 02:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm treating the existence of a separate fascist economic system as a fringe view, which it is. And support for privatization and deregulation may be mainstream, but actual libertarianism (opposition to any and all government intervention in the economy) is certainly not. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Most economic libertarians aren't absolutists in that way. Very few are against all intervention. RJII 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In resarching on Google, I'm finding people on the left using the term as well. RJII 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

fascist economies had in place price and wage controlls, government owned and run enterprises, macroeconomic like government investment into private enterprise. Hitler's government even worked to elievate poverty and create jobs. Fascism is simply socialism for the state, rather than attributing socialism for the people (either way the outcomes are the same). (Gibby 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

"Fringe view"

I find "economic libertarianism is mainstream in intellgentsia today" an extraodinary claim, and suggest that it might be key to the dispute. Jkelly 02:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There are more laissez-faire economists today than Keyenesians. That may have not been the case in the 1960's and 70's but this is 2005. You've even got laissez-faire advocate Alan Greenspan running the Federal Reserve in the US (here he is praising free markets in a recent speech [1]). Look at some of the Nobel prizes for economics in the just the last 10 years. Interventionism is out of favor. RJII 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"There are more laissez-faire economists today than Keyenesians": Prove it. I'd like to see a cite for this. And Alan Greenspan is not a laissez-faire advocate - if he was, he never would have accepted the job running the Fed in the first place, since the very existence of the Fed is against laissez-faire theology. Firebug 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. You don't have to be an anarcho-capitalist to properly be called an advocate of laissez-faire. If you at least favor a minimization of economic interventionism you're an economic libertarian, in common understanding. RJII 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. Of course it is an absolutist term. Laissez faire is used to distinguish between those who want a mixed economy (of whatever degree) and those who want absolute untrammelled capitalism. That is how the term has always been used. Neither Greenspan nor Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush were economic libertarians or advocates of laissez-faire. That is traditionally reserved for fringe figures like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul. Firebug 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam Smith is commonly recognized as the father of laissez-faire economics (capitalism) and he certainly did not advocate a total lack of government intervention. To be absolutely laissez-faire you have to be an anarchist. By the way, Milton Friedman is certainly not "fringe." I don't know how old you are, but advocacy of free markets is mainstream today (I'm not sure about among common folk, but certainly in academic circles). RJII 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

afd result

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus-default to keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

unethical actions by 172

The result of the vote was the article was to keep. 172 has taken it upon himself to go against that conclusion and redirect the article without consensus. This is highly unethical. He's also modifying/vandalizing the vote for deletion page page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2 after the close. A clear violation of policy. Just noting this for the record. Don't ever let this guy become an adminstrator. Or if he is one, revoke his badge. RJII 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

172 is a communist who wont let anything negative be placed on wiki. He's currently/along with a few other communist editors, engaged in a revert war on the Communism page, deleting any and all refrences to market reforms by communist countries. (Gibby 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for that. That explains a lot. RJII 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this was kept, but....

...the article must now be made NPOV. "Economic fascism" must be described as what it is: a term used by libertarians to describe various economic systems. That's all this article is about. Starting the article "Economic fascism is..." must continue "...a term used by some libertarians to describe...". As it stands it is NPOV.

I implore the editors in favour of keeping this page to edit it now in compliance with WP:NPOV. Remember - you are describing the theory used to explain real world events. So to keep it NPOV you must always describe it as such.

In the mean time, I am going to add a NPOV header here - until the article describes the theory passively. I voted to keep this article on the basis that it could be NPOV. Now it must become NPOV or keep the NPOV-Header forever! jucifer 22:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't notice the NPOV box. Ironically, the article is not neutral, but I don't know where it is "factually inaccurate". Let's be accurate about the boxes. jucifer 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the hangup over the "term." I don't think that's the right way to look at this article. It could have been called anything "Fascist economic systems," "Fascist economies," etc. I created this article under the name "economic fascism" just because it's a more common term than "fascist economic system." RJII 22:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

These are two entirly different things. Create the other article too - but this one must restrain itself to dealing with the term in libetarianism. "Economic systems in Fascist States is a seperate issue. Take care. jucifer 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "libertarians" are defining economic fascism in any specialized way. DiLorenzo goes through the economic aspects that are found in the Italian and German fascist systems in showing what a fascist economic system is. Who wouldn't agree those are aspects of those economies? What libertarians like DiLorenzo, however, are doing is going further to assert that there are some aspects of that system in the New Deal and other such things. It wouldn't make sense to intertwine the what constitutes economic fascism with any given libertarian argument about the New Deal, for example. RJII 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, it is a minority POV. Wikipedia's way of dealing with this kind of thing is to describe it as a theory that describes reality, rather than as stuff that happened. The protagonists for the theory are the ones that say THAT. We can't have an article describing a theory as fact. This is not a negotiable point. jucifer 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why make the article POV at all? Describing the economic system in fascist countries is not really a POV issue. A POV issue would be arguing that economic fascism exists, in say, the U.S. I don't understand the point of tying in a definition and description of economic fascism with such an argument. That seems really POV to me. The only thing I can understand that may be arguable is whether, in fact, the economic system in fascist nations was unique to those nations. That is, the question of whether economic fascism is a real thing or whether the system in fascist nations was simply capitalism or socialism. See the article The ‘Political Economy of Fascism’: Myth or Reality: or Myth and Reality? for this issue. RJII 02:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Look old chap

You know very well that "economic fascism" is only a term used by some libertarian thinkers to group together the economic systems of fascist states. This article MUST describe the theory or I personally will nominate it for deletion in two days time. You understand NPOV, I am not interested in pursuing this fruitless discussion.

Yours, jucifer 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be that only "libertarian thinkers" use the term "economic fascism." Feel free to state that in the article. But, that's so trivial. Should we also go through the list of other terms? Who instead of using the term "economic fascism" uses "fascist political economy"? Who uses the term "fascist economy"? See what I'm saying? If you want to state the argument from some "libertarians" that economic fascism exists in the U.S. or whatever, feel free. My only request is that you don't conflate it with the definition of economic fascism (aka fascist political economy). RJII 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC

I aint got time. This whole article is trivial. Make it NPOV like you said you would or I nominate it for AfD and change my vote. Tick Tock. jucifer 03:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll note that libertarians use the term. You could have done that yourself. Why you think that's important is beyond me. RJII 04:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

TwoVersions discussion

An archived version of the discussion during the period that this article was in a "Twoversions" form can be found at Talk:Economic fascism/twoversions. I encourage the editors involved in that discussion to read Talk:Economic fascism/twoversions#Situation_now before further editing. Thanks. Jkelly 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Firebug take a step back

Look, I don't like the article any more than you do. The Totally-disputed tag is sufficient, you can't go around making up great big ugly boxes like that without a strong consensus.

I would like to let this article develop for maybe 2 weeks or so - see if it improves. If it does not, I will personally nominate it for deletion. I suggest that you leave it for a few weeks and see what happens.

Adding stuff like that to an article simply makes it less likely to be improved, which is not what anyone wants. You cannot on the one hand argue that an article should be deleted because it is bad, while with your other hand you are making it worse.

I am going to remove your box one more time, and I hope you will have the courtesy not to put it back. jucifer 14:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues at dispute

First of all, the very existence of the article is disputed. Secondly, the first paragraph implies that "economic fascism" actually exists, rather than being a term made up by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That violates NPOV. Firebug 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed your big box because there is no precedence or agreement on such action as far as I can tell. I give you the NPOV problem... I voted delete so it's not like I am really trying to defend the article I'm just trying to show that the box is not appropriate just because a contentious article was VfDed. Many articles have two competing versions... that doesn't mean that it gets a box completely discreditting the article. gren グレン 15:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice of you to follow the standard procedure for putting up an NPOV tag, after being reprimanded. Don't stick a tag up on an article without saying exactly why on the talk page, so we can fix the problem --if there is one.RJII 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So you say, "the very existence of the article is disputed."? Well, the fact that you were able to put an NPOV on the article, and recognize that you did do that, tells me that you acknowledge that the article exists. So, your disputing that article exists is simply not credible. On the other hand, if you're trying to say that you're disputing whether the article should exist then that's not a proper tag to indicate that. As far as I know, there is no such tag.

Now, you say that the first paragraph mplies that "economic fascism" actually exists, rather than being a term made up by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies." Where do you see it saying that it exists? It says it was a system in the 20's and 30's that was found in fascist regimes. It says it DID exist, not that it exists. But, I can maybe change a word or two to indicate that more explicitly. No problem. I'm not sure if such system exists anywhere in the world today. I don't think it exists in the U.S., for example, --I think that's pretty obvious. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it exists today somewhere in the world. I'd have to research the economic systems in various countries. Regardless, that's not really my call to make and I certainly have no intent to make an assertion one way or the in the article. For example, in the capitalism article, it is not asserted that capitalism exists anywhere. It's simply defined and described abstractly. Anyway, back to your dispute. I'll change "originated in the 1920's..." to "FOUND in the 1920's..." just to be sure we're talking about something that doesn't necessarily exists today, but existed in the past. Let me know if my edits resolve what you think to be a problem so we can remove the tag. RJII 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I made changes just to be sure that the article is not interpreted as saying that economic fascism "exists." Do you agree that it doesn't say it exists? No response will indicate that you're no longer claiming this and we can removed the NPOV banner. RJII 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to throw my two cents in. My problem with this article is that economic fascism IS NOT the economic system of fascist nations. It is a neologism coined by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That's the problem with the article: it's not about what it says it's about. You're misdefining the term. The content of this article should be merged with corporatism and/or fascism, and the article itself should be replaced with one that describes economic fascism as the term is actually used. TomTheHand 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If economic fascism is not the economic system of fascist nations then what is? Corporativism is one part of the system, so that article just doesn't cover the system as a whole. There is also mercantilism, protectionism, limited private property rights for the means of production, etc. You say "the article itself should be replaced with one that describes economic fascism as the term is actually used." Well, how is it used then? The way I've seen it being used is to describe the economic systems under Mussolini and Hitler ..and according to some that oppose such a system, the system under FDR (at least the overall proposed system which the Supreme Court didn't allow to be established). If you see the term used in another way, please let us know. And, I think you're too hung up on the "term." "Political economy of fascism" is another term for the same thing --maybe it was coined by laissez-faire advocates too? I don't know. RJII 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just said what it is: a term used by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies! TomTheHand 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the article a bit. Also, since some of you guys are so hung up libertarianism, I'll shortly be writing about the libertarian argument that economic fascism was tried in the US under Rooselvelt before the Supreme Court struck the corporativist aspects of the New Deal down as unconstitutional, etc, etc. (unless someone else wants to get to it first). RJII 06:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Firebug's claim is that "economic fascism" is a libertarian neologism. If that claim is correct, the article should probably be deleted -- but should certainly note that "fact". Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. It's used by others besides "libertarians." It's used by socialists as well. And it was used before libertarians used it. Anyway, it's already noted in the article that laissez-faire advocates "popularized" the term (as if that has any importance). Others call economic fascism by other names, such as "fascist political economy." RJII 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave the factual matter open -- except that your last sentence suggests that the correct name of the article is "fascist political economy", with a note that some people use "economic fascism" to refer to it. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because "economic fascism" is the more common terminology. "Fascist political economy" would be closer to a neologism. RJII 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The most common usage of the term "economic fascism" is by laissez-faire advocates to refer to government intervention. Do a Google search and look at how many pages are actually about the economic system of fascist regimes, and how many of them are criticisms of government intervention in the economies of democratic countries. Fascism is already quite long, and I can see your point that corporatism is too limited, so I understand your arguments against merging. However, could this article be renamed? TomTheHand 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should the fact that most of those who use the term "economic fascism" oppose economic fascism mean the article should be renamed? Don't you realize that most of the people who call it by other names oppose it as well? Is it any surprise that those who speak out against fascist economics are laissez-faire advocates? I think your statement is wrong that "the most common usage of the term "economic fascism" is by laissez-faire advocates to refer to government intervention." In the texts I've seen they're not referring to mere intervention, but a systemic type of intervention --a system that is comparable to what you saw under Mussolini, etc. I don't know of any laissez-faire advocate that would call the mere act of intervention, economic fascism. RJII 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that there's a problem because most people who use the term "economic fascism" oppose it. I said that most people who use it are complaining about government intervention in the economies of democratic nations. It is most commonly used by laissez faire advocates for shock value, not by people actually discussing the economic system of fascist nations. It should be given a title that is not so tied up in libertarian alarmist nonsense. Your article would not be weakened and your work would not be lost. Please compromise on this. TomTheHand 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that the term is "not [used] by people actually discussing the economic system of fascist nations." Again, I think you're wrong. Look at the external links in the article. They're clearly using the term to label the economic system of fascist nations. THEN, the're proceeding to argue that the New Deal (as inititially envisioned) was the implementation of that system in the U.S. Where do you see the mere act of economic intervention being called economic fascism? I haven't seen that. If you've got a source, great. RJII 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The article looks like original research to me. First, you say that "economic fascism" is something the fascist nations had in common, rather than more correctly saying it's what a handful of libertarian theorists say they had in common. Then you go on to suggest strongly that government regulation of private ownership is "fascism". There's a clear line between "fascism" as a political (and economic) system and "fascism" as an epithet used by some for government control that they do not like. Personally, if Ronald Reagan calls me a fascist, I consider that a compliment ;-) James James 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Original research? Hardly. I've never seen so much sourced material in such a small article. "Economic fascism" is not being used as an epithet. And, it's not just "libertarian theorists" that discuss economic fascism. The article spans all sorts of political pursuasions, including socialists. This claim by some of you that it's a "libertarian" term is just not backed up by the facts. Even if that were true, so what? The term is notable regardless, and it's the most common term to label the economic system found in fascist italy and germany. RJII 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing an article is not the whole of preventing it from being original research, RJII. Using sourced material to draw your own conclusions is also OR. I'm afraid it mostly is "libertarian theorists" that discuss "economic fascism", rather than "the economic systems of '30s-'40s Germany and Italy". You should note that they are not commonly called that at all, and neither were they the same system. The term is generally used by those who want to claim that all government intervention in the economy beyond a certain point is "fascist", even when the end and mechanisms of that intervention are different. You'd do well to reflect that in the article, and to leave any further theorising to the theorists abovementioned. James James 01:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebug: 3RR

I hoped you would be reasonable. You realise that you have now reverted 3 times. jucifer 16:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, by my count, there were only 2 reverts, if you discount the reversion of the removal of the NPOV tag as proper reversion of vandalism. (Although I wouldn't call him/her "reasonable".) Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the article?

I'd like to see if there's some consensus for changing the name of the article. If so, I'd like to get ideas on what the article should be renamed to. It seems that there are some people who agree that the article would be better off named something without such a POV taint. I would be content with a relatively minor change, like "economics of Fascism" or "economics under Fascism." I know that RJII insists that the name must not be changed. Could everyone else with an interest in this debate sound off? TomTheHand 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It makes no sense to change the name of the article to a less notable and awkward term or phrase. That would be like changing the title of the capitalism article to economics under liberal democracies. Economic fascism is the term most used to label the overall fascist economic system found in fascist regimes. There is no "POV" taint --that's all in your head because the terms "fascist" and "fascism" are often thrown around as epithets. But, economic fascism is not used as an epithet in this article, nor by the sources. The next most often used term appears to be Fascist economy but it trails far behind economic fascism. (I do commend you for trying to get a consensus though, unlike firebug). RJII 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC

neologism

This article is forever going to be vague. I'm no professional on this subject, but I do know that Italy's economy ran and operated far far differently than Germany's. Germany was centred around corporatism, Italy had its syndicalism, and Japan (if you call it fascist) had the wall-mart sysyem. But thats just my secondary school memory speaking, I'm sure it goes deeper than that.--sansvoix 08:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the request for comment that brought me here! It should be renamed somthing like Correlations in Fascist Economies, and expanded as such.--sansvoix 08:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Right ..they were not identical, but the "correlations in fascist economies" is what constitutes economic fascism. The main correlation appears to be that neither system was capitalist nor socialist, but heavy government control over privately owned means of production --achieved by various schemes. RJII 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That was sort of what I was getting at. Calling this article "economic fascism" tells you that those militaristic nationalistic wackos in the 30's had a particular unique set of fascist economic policies you can read about. Of course it is far more complex, they all did different things, and most (all) of the economic policies were not distinctly "fascist." Or are not called that today. When the U.S expanded corporate rights, it wasn't a move to "economic fascism." There is no such thing as economic fascism, per se.--sansvoix 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

But there is such a thing. The economic system in both fascist Italy and Germany was not capitalism and was not socialism. It was a "third way." RJII 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But it was not the same thing, and your title, and your article for that matter, suggest that they are. There simply isn't any such thing as "fascist economy". James James 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC

RfC: The article ought to define which group of scholars use this term and should discuss competing theories. The short section about the United States New Deal is very slanted. It cites two authorities who claim the New Deal was an attempt to impose fascism and offers no evidence for any competing explanation. How about the American reform tradition that traced its roots to Edward Bellamy? How about the argument that moderate measures of the New Deal prevented a Communist movement from taking root? If the New Deal constitutes economic fascism, then virtually every country in present Western Europe is fascist. Durova 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Also agree with page move from economic fascism to economics of fascism, the former being a ridiculous and extremely ideological term (eg one exponent, Thomas DiLorenzo, reckons "A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day." [2]). Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. DiLorenzo is just one of many person that uses the term "economic fascism" to label the economic system. "Economics of fascism" make no sense is not as popular as "economic fascism." and fascism is not defined by being an economic system so it doesn't make much sense to call it that. The Mises Institute, however, did recently have a symposium called "The Economics of Fascism." RJII 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you are discussing "the economics of fascism" (or of the fascist polities, anyway), not the term "economic fascism" as it has been used. James James 23:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you find a source where it's not being used to describe the economic system that was found in fascist Italy and Germany? RJII 00:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article does, for one. You do not actually give contentions made in sources, man, you just state as though it were a fact that "economic fascism" is what Germany and Italy practised. Constantly putting up the straw man that your "sources" describe Germany and Italy as practising "economic fascism" doesn't answer the argument that it has little currency as a concept outside some libertarian polemicists and that most economists/historians of economics/political historians neither use the term nor would agree that there is a coherent economic system that all the fascist nations employed. James James 03:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Economic fascism" sounds like a type of fascism, not a property of fascism. And since fascism involves the linkage of the political and economic for the purposes of the nation-state, the former makes no sense. There is no fascism that is purely political! Rd232 ^talk 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There may be no fascism that is purely political, but that doesn't mean that the economic system in fascist regimes can't be viewed as a disitinct economic system that wasn't found in other States. RJII 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, (a) like JamesJames, I'm not sure there is a distinct and definable economic system identifiable with fascism; (b) if there is, there's no reason to give it the misleading name of "economic fascism". Rd232 ^talk 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you could find some dissenting opinions --that is, some arguing that there's no such thing as economic fascism --that would be great. There is a new article called "The ‘Political Economy of Fascism’: Myth or Reality: or Myth and Reality? that's examining that question, but I think it's still a work in progress. RJII 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem remains that this article says that "economic fascism" is X, Y and Z. You don't say "A, B and C says that economic fascism is X, Y and Z". You make out it's an actual thing. Which it isn't. I'm going to move it back to economy of fascism, which is what you discuss, unless you rewrite the intro to be clear that you are using a term that is pretty much restricted to a certain group of polemicists. James James 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII, you've done some weird thing that has created your title as a POV fork of "economics of fascism". You can see that there's no consensus for your view that "fascist economy" is an actual thing, because there was no particular system that the fascist nations shared. Whatever you've done, please work on the article titled economics of fascism, which is more NPOV, and arrange to have your fork deleted. James James 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's not a consensus either way. So you're redirecting without a consensus. Anyway, why would "economics of fascism" be NPOV if "economic fascism" is not? That makes no sense to me. RJII 03:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's clearly a consensus, RJII. Please stop reverting to your version. You've inadvertently created a fork rather than moved the page. "Economic fascism" would be something quite different from "economics of fascism". The latter would be the economics employed by fascism, while the former would be the philosophy of fascism applied to economics, I guess. That it's so hard to work out what it could even mean should give you a hint as to its coherence as a concept. What you are trying to do in this article is conflate the economics of the fascist nations (which does not make a coherent economics, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseam) with some notion of "economic fascism", which is interpreted as "heavy government intervention". But, as has also been pointed out to you, that notion does not have much currency outside a few polemicists with an agenda, and to try to pass it off as something that has a broader context in economics is just wrong. Look, leave the article where it is. It has the (mostly original) content you put in it and your title redirects to it. It simply more accurately characterises what you've written about and your contention that anyone who thinks the government should regulate business is a fascist is more or less untouched. James James 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is clearly not a consensus, as was evidenced in the vote: [3] Maybe you didn't know that. Now that you do know that, if you redirect the article you will know that you are doing it without a consensus. RJII 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Your attempted explanation of why "economics of fascism" is NPOV but "economic fascism" is POV is completely vacuous. RJII 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Every editor except you on this page has taken issue with your title and the way you talk about "economic fascism". Your view has absolutely no support. You can't appeal to the deletion vote. That has no part of the discussion here, since it was a discussion about keeping this article, not whether it could be moved or not, or whether it was substantially correct or not.

That's not true. Others have tried to redirect the article without a consensus and were reverted by others besides me. It's not just me that is trying to protect the Wikipedia policy about doing such drastic things without a consensus. RJII 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus on this page to redirect the article and rewrite it to more correctly discuss the subject.James James 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. You really should check your glasses then. RJII 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII, literally NOBODY agrees with you. Please look up and down the page and realize that the closest thing to your position that you'll find is that the article requires extensive cleanup. Some people want deletion, some want the article rewritten to actually reflect the usage of the phrase "economic fascism" by libertarians, others want a rename to a more appropriate title, but there is a clear consensus that the article is not satisfactory as-is. TomTheHand 04:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. You just have the impression because I'm the only one taking the time responding to the ridiculous complaints from the POV-inclined people here and indulging in them. You'll see in the AfD that was just inititiated that people do want the article. I personally don't think the article is great, but it's good start. It needs to exist and will continue to have extensive improvement over time. The economic practices of fascism is an extremely notable topic and there's nothing you can do to stop the article. Change the name, or whatever, there will always be an article on fascist economics and there's nothing you can do to stop it. The seed has been planted. RJII 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom, would you consider listing this article for deletion? I would, but I don't know how. I think most people here would vote for deletion. The more I consider it, I'm not sure there is any hope that this article can be anything but inherently POV. It seems to exist only to draw specious links between right-wing statist ideologies like fascism and Naziism and FDR's leftist "New Deal". --SpinyNorman 20:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII. The consensus opinion among non-libertarians is that there is no such thing as economic fascism No, I'm treating the existence of a separate fascist economic system as a fringe view, which it is. --Mihnea Tudoreanu

Any source for your claim that some claim there's no such thing as economic fascism? I'd love to add that to the article if you could come up with a source. RJII 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Starting the article "Economic fascism is..." must continue "...a term used by some libertarians to describe..." "Economic systems in Fascist States is a seperate issue. Take care. You know very well that "economic fascism" is only a term used by some libertarian thinkers to group together the economic systems of fascist states. --jucifer

First of all, the very existence of the article is disputed. Secondly, the first paragraph implies that "economic fascism" actually exists, rather than being a term made up by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That violates NPOV. --Firebug

My problem with this article is that economic fascism IS NOT the economic system of fascist nations. It is a neologism coined by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That's the problem with the article: it's not about what it says it's about. You're misdefining the term. The content of this article should be merged with corporatism and/or fascism, and the article itself should be replaced with one that describes economic fascism as the term is actually used. TomTheHand

'm willing to leave the factual matter open -- except that your last sentence suggests that the correct name of the article is "fascist political economy", with a note that some people use "economic fascism" to refer to it. Arthur Rubin

t should be renamed somthing like Correlations in Fascist Economies, and expanded as such.--sansvoix

The article ought to define which group of scholars use this term and should discuss competing theories. The short section about the United States New Deal is very slanted. It cites two authorities who claim the New Deal was an attempt to impose fascism and offers no evidence for any competing explanation. How about the American reform tradition that traced its roots to Edward Bellamy? How about the argument that moderate measures of the New Deal prevented a Communist movement from taking root? If the New Deal constitutes economic fascism, then virtually every country in present Western Europe is fascist. Durova

Agreed. Also agree with page move from economic fascism to economics of fascism Rd232

That wouldn't make sense because the whole point is that there is a fascist political economy. "Economics of fascism," in addition to being a seldomly-used term, would not be a systemic label. If you don't agree that there is such a system, fine. Find some who disagree so we can add sourced disagreement to the article. RJII 06:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's every editor to edit this page except for you. All disagree with your view. All want the article renamed or recast. James James 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. "Jucifer" above was putting the article back in place when someone else was trying to redirect it. You should really read the Talk page and edit history before you throw around a claim like that. You're being really disruptive. RJII 05:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've quoted Jucifer's view. In his/her own words. James James 05:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also the adminstrator who tallied the vote warned a couple other people who tried to redirect the article ..told them it was vandalism. RJII 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very hung up on a vote that showed no consensus. There was practically no support in the discussion for the page as it stands, and there is none at all here on the discussion page. You cannot claim that because there was no consensus on getting rid of your article that no one can ever change the title or any of the content! You've now reverted eight or nine times. You're clearly in breach of the 3RR.James James 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly the policy. If there is no consensus to redirect the article, it doesn't get redirected. The 3RR doesn't apply to redirect vandalism like this. RJII 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking you to stop calling me a vandal. I'm editing in good faith here. The deletion process decides whether to delete or keep an article. No one is deleting the article, merely changing the title. Perhaps you can find the element of deletion policy that says that an article's title may never be changed? James James 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll quote the adminstrator who admonished someone else who tried to redirect the article: "172, also if you would like the article to be redirected attempt to get a consensus on the talk page to do so. I like all people support being bold in certain situations but doing so without a consensus is against policy and is going to just lead to an edit war which should be avoided if at all possible. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)" There is not a consensus to redirect the article, so you are violating Wikipedia policy. Ever since the vote, there have been sore losers from that vote who have tried to redirect the article knowing that there's not a conensus. You weren't part of that vote so you didn;t know the history of what's been going on. But, now you do, and you know the result of the vote from just a few weeks ago. So if you redirect the article you know you are doing it without a conensus. You are being disruptive. RJII 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've redirected Economic fascism back to Economics of fascism, which was the pre-3RR situation, and I'll leave it protected for a day or so until the situation is calmer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad move. There was not a consensus to redirect the article. [4] Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy. RJII 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article has not been redirected. This is the same article! Just the title has been changed per consensus. James James 07:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What consensus? There was not a consensus to move the article. RJII 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the only person who doesn't think the article needs radical surgery, RJII, and there's clear consensus that the title doesn't fit the content. Let's try to work together to give it that surgery and work for something we can all live with, rather than butt heads over whether you get to give it your pet name or not. James James 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources needed. Intro first.

The economics of fascism, called by some theorists

Names please.

economic fascism (aka fascist economy), is the set of economic practices and characteristics common to fascist regimes in the 1920s and 1930s

Please provide a list of common characteristics here on the talk page. Please do so from sources, not just off the top of your head. We want to construct an article about what people say about the fascist economies, not about your own theory of them.

with the most often cited characteristic

Sources please.

being the presence of private or quasi-private ownership

What does "quasi-private" mean in this instance?

of the means of production that was heavily coordinated by government.

What does "heavily coordinated" mean? Who says that fascist nations heavily coordinated the means of production?

In Italy and Germany, the State instituted a planned economy that was held to be in the best interest of the nation rather than allowing an economy to self-organize without centralized coordination.

Source please.

The system included government-mandated business and government partnerships (see corporatism) and mercantilist practices.

Seems okay.

Economic fascism has also been called fascist political economy, fascist economy, political economy of fascism, planned capitalism, and autarchic capitalism.

Please supply sources that say that any of these things are the same thing as "economic fascism".

When we say which theorists have said the things you're saying here, can we expand on their affiliations and whether anyone has disagreed with them in their analysis?James James 07:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is well sourced. If you want more sources, you're going to have to wait until the article is moved back to where it belongs (unless someone else wants to assist you with that). Obviously you havent read the article or the sources or you wouldnt be asking these questions. Acqaint yourself with things before asking questions. And, feel free to edit this article, but be forewarned that your edits will be lost when economic fascism is restored. RJII 07:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is not well sourced. I've indicated the elements in the intro that are not sourced and need your input. I'm very well acquainted with the economics of the fascist nations, so I'll be fascinated to see your sources and read your discussion of them. As it stands though, there's no sourcing at all for the assertions of the introduction. If you won't source it, per policy I will remove it and replace it with something more in keeping with NPOV. And you won't get it restored to economic fascism, because POV forking is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please don't try to edit the fork any more. It's a waste of your work. If you feel you can build a consensus for a move to economic fascism, please do so, but work on this article until you are able to build the support. It's just a name change. The articles are the same, except where you reverted before you c&p'd the content!James James 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to move the article back to economic fascism as you have moved it without a consensus. As for the intro, it's just a summary of the sourced information in the article. As soon as I am able to move the article back without violating the 3RR rule, I will do so. You are being very disruptive to Wikipedia ethics. I will not be editing this article any further, so have at it. All your edits will be lost when economic fascism is restored. RJII 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations James, you've just violated the 3RR rule. I'm going to report it. RJII 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course I haven't. I rewrote the opening when I first moved the article and this is the first time I've had to change it back. Instead of accepting my invitation to work together on this article, you've tried to entrap me and get me blocked from editing. I don't really know what to say to someone willing to go that low, frankly. James James 08:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I give up. What's the point of trying to work on an article when another editor can just revert your work with impunity and refuses to collaborate at all? I am very disappointed that RJII wasn't blocked and has continued to revert to his preferred version. James James 08:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to work on this article "together." I am going to work on the economic fascism article, not this one as this one exists illegitimately. After your unethical behavior I have no desire to "work together" with you on anything. You should try to "work together" will people by obtaining a consensus before moving an article. Get with the program. I only collaborate with civil people. RJII 08:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Direction for the article now

I'm glad that the article has been renamed. However, there are still issues with the article's contents and I don't really know what to do about them. I think it would be a great idea if the article now becomes a compare/contrast of different fascist economies. However, I lack the full depth of knowledge on the subject necessary.

Also, I wonder about the article's scope: what do we call fascism? We should certainly stretch beyond defining it as just Mussoulini's system. Hitler's National Socialism should be included as well. How about Japan, or other modern authoritarian governments? Where is the line drawn? As the scope gets expanded, the use of the word "fascism" may be POV. The Nazis didn't call themselves fascist, for example, but nobody would feel too bad about lumping them together. On the other hand, Pinochet's economics might well be looked at, but calling him fascist is probably closer to POV. It may be necessary to rename the article again at some point. TomTheHand 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII has now renamed the article from Economics of fascism to Fascist economy; I'm not sure why he thinks that an improvement. I don't mind either way, but I wish he'd address the questions in the previous section, instead of just referring us to sources. Rd232 ^talk 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we please not have a move war? Suggestion: how about having economic fascism be a short article very specifically devoted to the arguments used by those theorists who use the term (including the idea of the US being "economic fascist"), and keep economics of fascism or fascist economy for more general discussion of the relationship between economics and fascism. In this structure, "economic fascism" wouldn't claim to be synonymous with "the economics of fascism", it would be clearly described as a term used by some people to mean more specific things, or a specific approach to the topic. Yes? No? Comments? Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell are you guys hung up on the term "economic fascism"? I just don't get it. No matter what you call it, it's all the same thing --the economic system of the fascists. I think it would be a bad idea to make seperate articles. The term itself has nothing to do with arguments. The term is used by capitalists, socialists, and others. The same arguments from some that economic fascism was tried in the US under Roosevelt would be in both articles (i would make sure of that). RJII 20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I think the distinction is important is that "economic fascism" sounds like a type of fascism limited to the economic arena; like a political system under which the economy is strongly controlled by government but the political arena is open and democratic and respecting of human rights. This sounds weird and has little if anything to do (necessarily) with how the economy is run under fascism. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the whole idea. The political economy of fascism is an abstraction --the economic system isolated from non-economic policies present in the political system that it may be contained in. Capitalism is the same way --you can have capitalism in a country that does not respect human rights, as long as you have private ownership of the means of production and a free market economy. Now, some may dispute that the economic system in fascist regimes was truly distinct from other known economic systems (e.g. capitalism or socialism) --and that would be good to add to the article with sources. RJII 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I give up on this. "Fascist political economy" doesn't make any sense. It's just "fascist economy" with another word in the title. If you abstracted the economic system from fascism without the "non-economic policies in the political system that it may be contained in", what you would have is the economics of fascism. RJII has bullied other editors, and broken the rules here to get his own way. This page should be moved back to "economics of fascism" and RJII, I'm sorry to have to say it, should be prevented from working on it until he's learned the value of collaboration. James James 05:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your points 100%, James James. ...Bullying tactics kept me away from this debate, I can't stand it! Good for you James, for keeping it up this long.--sansvoix 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Direction of the article reprise

Now the article is under a name that makes sense at least, can we please move on with it?

Could anyone who wants to make major changes -- more than fixing typos in other words -- please suggest them on talk first? Let's thrash out an article that all are happy with.

I would like to suggest that if what we are presenting is a comparative analysis of economics in fascist polities, we stick to writing about that. If, however, we are having a history of theory of government control, in other words, a discussion about how economists have labelled different economies or different policies "fascist", let's write that. But let's not do both in the hope that the reader will join the dots.

Can interested editors give their thoughts on the way forward for the article? Let's see exactly what we think it should and shouldn't cover. James James 05:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic fascism

RJII has asked me to unprotect the Economic fascism redirect to this page, which I protected to stop the revert war. I assume that means he intends to move it again. Could someone say what the status is of the consensus, and whether anyone other than RJII thinks the article should be called Economic fascism? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from the discussion on the talkpage that there was a strong consensus that among the several problems of this article was its title. Not a single other editor agreed with RJII. For a precis of the stated views, please see the section headed "13 Consensus" above. James James 06:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to move an article you should take the proper procedure to make sure there's a consensus. A few weeks ago there was a vote on the article that included several "keeps." Anyway, there certainly wasn't a consensus to move it to "economics of fascism." RJII 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from this exchange that the reverting will continue if I unlock the redirect, so I'm keeping it protected for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

james james deleting sourced information

james, why are you deleting sourced information? why won't you take time to read the article instead of just deleting things? RJII 06:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any sourced information. If you think that I've deleted something that should be included, place it here on talk and let's discuss it. James James 06:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

"Economic fascism was practiced in Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler."

Duh. Mussolini was in charge when fascism was going on, ..likewise for Hitler. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read my actual objection, rather than rudely attacking a straw man. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no objective. Just a unfounded deletion. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Economic fascism" is a meaningless term. You haven't actually shown that it means anything in the article. You say that fascist economies have something in common -- heavy government control of private ownership -- but you have not put in any discussion of whether this is generally called "economic fascism".

If economic fascism is a meaningless term then why are scholars using it? It may be meaningless to you, but not to those of us who employ the term. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please source the section to scholars saying that Hitler practised it in Germany and Mussolini practised it in Italy. The opinions of "those of you" who use the term are not useful to Wikipedia unless you have had them published in a reputable source. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely insane. The article is ABOUT the economic systems under Mussolini and Hitler. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Some argue that economic fascism was attempted in the U.S. under Franklin Roosevelt with the implentation of the New Deal."

You did not source this. You quoted Ronald Reagan saying that fascism was "the basis for the New Deal". He did not say that fascism of any kind was tried in the New Deal. Even if he had, he is not "some" and you directly quote him so the weasel words would be entirely extraneous.

It is indeed sourced. Look a few sentences down. Ebeling says that the New Deal was economic fascism. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Then the sentence should say "Ebeling says that the New Deal..." etc. But it doesn't. It says "some" say it. You need to say who Ebeling is. In fact, you need to note who all the people you source are. They're just names without some kind of description of what they are. It should be made clear that they represent a particular view on economics. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Many others believe that the New Deal was economic fascism. There is no need to source everyone. You don't know much about how Wikipedia works do you? Things have to be sourcABLE, not necessarily sourced. A quick search on Google will show you all the people arguing that the New Deal was fascist economcs. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a need to source everyone. You must source everyone you are using as a source, particularly when you are stating nonmainstream views. I remind you, once more, that the mainstream don't even use the term "economic fascism".James James 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No there is NOT a need to source everyone. One or two is fine. Is this all alien to you? I thought everyone knew that Roosevelt's economic plan was attacked as being fascist. Maybe you should be working on an article about something you have more knowledge about. RJII 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's far preferrable, and indeed is Wikipedia policy, to say who said what, not to make a thesis and then find quotes to back it up. James James 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You've broken the 3RR rule. You aren't willing to face the penalty for it are you? Yet you got me banned for it the other day. There's a word for that kind of behavior. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You weren't banned for breaking the 3RR, even though you reverted an article nine times. You were banned for disruption and you should have been given the same treatment today when you repeated the same behaviour. You've broken the 3RR again today, and I didn't even bother to report you. I'm trying to move on and give you a chance to collaborate. You don't seem to be interested in that. James James 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No I have not broken the 3RR rule today. The reason you haven't reported it is because it didn't happen and you know it, so don't try to play it off as some kind of benevolence. Your behavior is appalling. RJII 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Some advice for RJ and James: Take a deep breath and a step back. You're both getting on each other's nerves and the results are predictable. So, I suggest you relax a little and smoke the digital peace pipe. --SpinyNorman 07:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the glass quote? james james above was just complaining about lack of sources, so I added one. Now you deleted it. You said it was "inflammatory," but anything is going to sound "inflammatory" when it's labeled "fascist" or "Hitlerism," etc. I think that removal was unjustified. RJII 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because he wasn't really talking about economic fascism just about his gripes with FDR and because he's an obscure source with a bit of a reputation for being a classic "cantankerous southerner" who would have had a long list of reasons to resent FDR for all sorts of things completely unrelated to this subject. He isn't a good source and his statement was completely over-the-top. --SpinyNorman 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now what? I put in the claim without the source. And you remove the claim saying it's unsupported. You removed the support! RJII 08:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no support. That's why I removed it. You said "The New Deal was also attacked at the time of its implementation as being fascist economics." but you don't say who was doing the attacking or who was reporting the attacking. This isn't an editorial page. These articles aren't to draw inferences or conclusions, they are to report fact. --SpinyNorman 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you deleted the source. RJII 09:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What? The Glass quote? One grouchy southern politician with a bone to pick with FDR isn't really very much support. --SpinyNorman 09:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ebeling -- libertarian?

in biiiig letters look who contributes Libertarian Alliance not just thinks he is one but gave him an award for a lifetime of being one Why are the Libertarian Party even asking him to run? Michigan libertarians think he's one These people think he's one

By the way, removing the word "libertarian" was another revert to a previous version. Please replace the word. I've sourced it. James James 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying he's a libertarian. I just wanted to see a source --as far as I knew he was just a laissez-faire advocate --I had no information on his view on civil liberties. Just making sure you guys are not advertising libertarianism without good reason. RJII 08:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In future, it would be helpful if you didn't just assume that the usage was incorrect and did a little research first. If you'd checked his wiki article, you'd have seen that he describes himself as a libertarian. I notice you didn't request a source that Ronald Reagan is a Republican.  ;-> --SpinyNorman 09:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is he a member of the Libertarian Party? If not, then the "l" shouldn't be capitaliized. RJII 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The links above show pretty clearly that he's a Libertarian. My suggestion to you is that you research more and if that means you have to edit a little less, then so be it. --SpinyNorman 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion to you is you don't delete direct quotes that support a claim, then delete the claim with the excuse that it's not supported. RJII 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So that's a "no" then? To the idea of doing more research, I mean... --SpinyNorman 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a suggestion, in regard to the Glass quote. RJII 09:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see no evidence in those links that he's a member of the Libertarian Party. I suggest you do a bit of research before you make such a claim. The fact that he refused to run for vice president in the Libertarian Party certainly is not evidence. RJII 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You (chuckle) "see no evidence"? I'll give you a hint: check the first link of the group that James provided and look for the phrase "Richard M. Ebeling - Libertarian". It is, I daresay, difficult to miss. --SpinyNorman 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be capitaliized only because it's a title. Nowhere in that article does it say he's a member of the Libertarian Party. Do you understand that there is such a thing as libertarians who are not members of the U.S. Libertarian Party (often because they disagree with their political philosophy)? I would think most libertarians are not members of the U.S. Libertarian Party. If someone is in that party, the "l" is capitalized. If they're philosophical libertarians then it's a small "l." RJII 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

source requested

Spiny, got a source for your claim: "The economics of fascism is a phrase used by some economic theorists (typically libertarian and capitalists)" ? RJII 09:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is self-evident. It is a phrase - "A sequence of words intended to have meaning" [5]. It is used by some economic theorists, again, as the article itself points out and since they are typically libertarian and capitalist, this part is also self-evident. --SpinyNorman 09:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source? That is, do you have a libertarian using that term? The only time I've seen that phrase used is the title of a conference on economic fascism. Libertarians just call it what everybody else calls it ..economic fascism. My suggestion to you is that you do some research before you make a strange claim like that. RJII 09:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Npov violations

This article is violating NPOV by presenting this argument as historical fact.

The "third way" definition is a biased opinion, based on some selective claims.

This article finds convoluted ways (such as selective quotes) to tell you that fascism is really the area between socialism and capitalism

"The fascist economy differs from capitalism, in which the means of production are largely privately owned and mostly privately controlled in a mainly free market. It also differs from statist forms of socialism and communism where the means of production are owned by the state."

That is an inaccurate characterisation. As been stated in the AFD, there is no such thing as a "fascist economy.." Fascism is not an economic value. Not to mention every second word is vague, capitalism and socialism too are generalisations if not given context.

Also, even assuming this article is covering an argument, not historical fact, devoting 1/3 page space on comparisons between fascism and the New Deal is biased. You would think the U.S. expansions of Corporate Rights, growth of a heirarchical system, and all the right-wing economic stuff possibly associated with Hitler, would be written about too.--sansvoix 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Some libertarians make the argument that the U.S. heading toward economic fascism because of this collusion between government and business. I guess we could add that argument if you insist. RJII 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The third way stuff is sourced. A claim is not made ..claims are only made about what people say about economic fascism (so there is nothing POV). And, the father of fascism himself, Mussolini, called it a third way --said it wasnt capitalism or socialism. RJII 09:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Mussolini, but every economy in the world is a "third way." What I'm saying is that presenting Fascism as an distinct economic ideology is incorrect. While this seems like a minor issue, it is important in the wide sense here. Giving Fascism its own loose economic system, a concrete "third way" that "differs" from both "capitalism" and "socialism and communism" prebuilds a strawman for any and all economic policy that falls into that wide definition. Of course it is legitimate to make some factual comparisons, between individual things. If you really are looking for some US right-wing fascist comparisons, a good one is Right-to-work laws! It would be easy to write about, as Fascist dismantling of trade unions power is well documented! --sansvoix 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but it's not a POV issue, because like I said the article doesn't assert that --rather the sources do. If you've got a source that disputes the existence of a fascist economic system, add it in. My guess is it would not be too difficult to find some source that claim, for example, that Fascist Italy or Germany was capitalism (by someone using some antiquated definition of capitalism that doesn't include private control and a free market (laissez-faire) as characteristics). If you can fine one, add it in --the more controversy the better. RJII 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascist economy is not the same as economics of fascism

RJII is now reverting the article bit by bit, a death of a thousand cuts. In particular he is changing references to the "economics of fascism" (IOW, the things that the various fascist polities had in common economically) to "fascist economy" (a neologism in this sense largely of his own invention), among other minor and not so minor reversions, all aimed at pushing a POV. A third of the article is dedicated to a thesis that the New Deal was fascist, which is rather disproportionate, given how little of the article describes the economic systems of the fascist nations. Japan and Spain don't even get a mention. It's a strange world in which FDR is a fascist but Franco isn't. James James 10:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a job for you then. Research the economic fascism of Japan and Spain and add it to the article. Get busy. RJII 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how either "economics of fascism" or "fascist economy" defines this article. Neither one makes any sense! Both look like the title of an article about fascist economics. --sansvoix 10:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd see all three as broadly equivalent. The problem is that RJII wants the article to be about something else; he essentially wants the article to talk about fascism/economics in order to be able to make the point that some people have argued that the US (and specifically the New Deal) is economically fascist. This conflicts with what everyone else wants, which is to talk about economics/fascism nexus for its own sake. This (in view of RJII's legendary patience - see eg Talk:Coercive monopoly) isn't going to get resolved by debate or editing, unless everyone else gives up and leaves him to it. So what happened to my suggestion above of splitting the article between this one (for general fascism/economics) and (theory of ) economic fascism for a (NPOV and sourced) description of the views (properly attributed to theorists X, Y and Z) RJII wants to present? Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You're really mischaracterizing me there. If you study the talk pages, you'll find I didn't create a section on economic fascism in the US until I was prodded by several to do so who claimed that the article was POV because there was no mention of the argument from the libertarians. My preference is that the article focuses on presenting the characterstics of all the historically fascist economies. The New Deal matter deserves a small section because it seems to be a siginificant and notable view that it was fascist economics, but if anyone thinks it's disproportionate it's just because the rest of the article needs more information. You guys are making complaints but not doing any research. I'm the ONLY one that has done ANY research and has added ANY information and sources. It's really pathetic. Stop complaining and get to work. You two have done NOTHING. RJII 18:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if I misunderstood your priorities here. It's true I haven't contributed to the article, and don't intend to; I only came here via RFC to see if I could help clarify things. (Apparently not.) But if you are interested in the general topic, why are you so hung up on the phrase "economic fascism"? Rd232 ^talk 18:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anymore, actually. I prefer a more generic term for the title of the article now. That way, the issue of whether "libertarians" use a particular term is not relevant and more important things can be dealt with. I thought "economics of fascism" was extremely generic, but as you can see someone has even edited the article to say that "libertarians and capitalists" use the "phrase" --which is really bizarre. RJII 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

He now has the first paragraph back to how it was, more or less. Still no admin will block him for what are now about a dozen reverts. It's no wonder he doesn't feel as though he must collaborate, when he can revert as he likes without censure. I agree with Rd232. The whole article is an attempt to describe all interventionist government as fascist. James James 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Third way section

I don't think we need to include our personal theses on how economics in fascism differs from that in capitalism or socialism, so I've removed the original research.

If this is replaced with mainstream sources, that's fine, but please also include a discussion, from a mainstream source on the economics employed in the fascist nations, because this is missing. James James 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What, to you, constitutes a "mainstream" source? I have a feeling you're going to discount any laissez-faire advocates, even though economic libertarianism is mainstream. RJII 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On the fundamental issues, RJII, I think we should stick to textbook-style definitions. Surely you can see that some anarcho-capitalist with a website is not a "mainstream" source? James James 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

James, you need to stop deleting the links to the references when you edit. RJII 02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, I haven't. You need to stop reverting when you edit. James James 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you have and I've had to fix it before. Just now you deleted the link to the Ebeling reference. RJII 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Actually, the deletion was done awhile back. RJII 02:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not by me then? James James 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just libertarian

Please name any theorist who could not fairly be described as a "libertarian" who proposes this theory. James James 02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Flynn? RJII 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And, Schmitt, a socialist. RJII 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And, Michael Coren, a "social conservative." RJII 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you pulling my leg? These are people you quoted, not theorists who propose the theory you're pushing.James James 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, this:

The theory that the fascist regimes of the 1920s and 1930s shared economic policies, practices, and characteristics, creating a definable economics of fascism.

won't do. It's not a sentence because you've removed the agent! You've got to stop mangling up the text and then "rewriting" it. It's just reversion by the back door.

I'll agree to its ending in "by some, mainly libertarian, theorists." That's a fair characterisation, don't you think? You're really scratching around if you're relying on Flynn and Schmitt as your "not libertarian" theorists. If you agree, please add it in. If you don't, please give very good reason. James James 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Flynn wasn't a libertarian, and Flynn was a major source for the laying out the characteristics of economic fascism. He was a liberal though. That would be a less problematic term. RJII 03:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He was a neoliberal before they invented the word. If you wanted to say "some, mainly libertarian and neoliberal, theorists", that would be okay too. That would more or less cover Coren too. But it can't stand as it is, you must surely agree? James James 03:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neoliberal? That's one term that doesn't make sense describing someone from the 1940's in retrospect. "Classical liberalism" is the term to use if you're worried about being confused for contemporary Welfare Liberalism. RJII 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I expect you could write me a thesis on the difference, but it's angels on the tip of a pin stuff. How about trying to find an alternative that you like? That's what I'm trying to do, to rescue the intro from the mess you've made of it. Clearly, you object to "libertarian". How about "some, mainly antistatist, theorists"? That would capture what Flynn and Ebeling have in common, no?James James 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made a "mess" of anything in the article. Our conversation comes to a close right here. I tried to collaborate civily with you, taking the chance that you might be a decent person afterall, and it was a big mistake. RJII 03:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't "collaborated" at all. You munged the intro so that you could remove the word "libertarian". Because I'm concerned that the intro should be fair, I'm trying to find an alternative that will suit us both. You're simply obstructing that rather than trying to move it forward. The intro is still munged! Do you not see that that is not a sentence? James James 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If I want to remove the word "libertarian" I will do it outright. Why on Earth would I not? I had no need to engage in any kind of shady behavior to remove it. I had every right to remove the word. You need to back off with you accusations of bad faith. RJII 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it would be yet another revert, and you'd be blocked for it. Assuming good faith is not the same as letting someone who's kicked you in the nuts have another pop at them. Anyway, I'm here to discuss the article and how we fix the mess, not your good, bad or indifferent faith. So what do you think of "some, mainly antistatist, theorists"? Do you agree on that? Or will you suggest a reasonable alternative? James James 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be a "revert." And there is no "mess" to fix. The article is not perfect, but it's a pretty good starter article. NPOV and sourced. RJII 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read the opening sentence? You don't think it's a mess? It lacks a main verb.James James 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Even our article defines Flynn as a "classical liberal". You're surely not going to try arguing that a "classical liberal" is a "liberal" as the latter is nowadays understood? James James 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement

File:Economics of fascism.jpg

This image is for a conference that already happened. I don't think someone using it makes this article commercial.

Kalmia 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's fair use, in the same way a book cover is fair use. RJII 01:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Were the article about the conference, I'd agree, but it isn't and I don't. James James 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There it is: [6] RJII 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article, I meant! James James 03:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture isn't relevant to the article and I personally see it as just a cheap shot - an opportunity to get a picture into the article that puts FDR's face next to those of Hitler and Mussolini. Despite the hysterical hyperbole of the far-right, FDR has almost nothing in common with those people (or Franco or Peron). In fact, libertarians agree with socialists that the government as a role to play in regulating industry and commerce, the only point on which they disagree is the extent of the regulation. --SpinyNorman 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not the extent, but the kind of regulation. Regulations against force and fraud are what libertarians support. Regulations that themselves are initiatory coercion, they oppose (economic interventionism). RJII 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You're getting trapped in your own semantic sleight-of-hand here. Both a socialist and a libertarian would support government regulation of commerce where it concerns matters of fraud or false-advertizing. A socialist would support a taxpayer-funded public education system as well - where a libertarian might not. A socialist might support government subsidies for certain businesses where a libertarial certainly would not. As I said before, the question is not "Should the government intervene?" but "What forms should the intervention take?" --SpinyNorman 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, libertarians are against all interventionISM. Libertarians believe government should only step in to stop coercion, but not engage in coercion (interventionist regulation) itself. For example, a law against false-advertising a libertarian would support since it is used to coerce someone out of their money with dishonesty (in essence, a purchase under false advertising would be an involuntary transaction). But, a libertarian would oppose a law forcing someone to put a nutrition label on their product because government enforcement of that would be the initiation of coercion. Libertarians believe that force should only be used to restrain coercion. It should never be used proactively. RJII 20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. First you say that libertarians are against all interventionism (which is obviously untrue) and then you immediately go on to prove your previous statement wrong by saying that libertarians believe it is a proper role of the government to prevent coercion (which is correct). Not all libertarians would oppose laws requiring nutrition labels. Some would make the argument that nutrition labels are required for the buyer to give their informed consent to the transaction. As for your statement that libertarians believe government restraint of coercion should never be proactive... you're simply incorrect. A law against false advertizing is proactive. Once again, you have contradicted yourself.

You don't understand what interventionism is. It means positive intervention, rather than defensive intervention. Libertarians oppose positive intervention, and support defensive intervention. And, yes all libertarians would oppose a government forcing a merchant to put a nutrition label on his product (as long as you're using a strict definition of libertarianism). Libertarians would support a law against false-advertising, but note that the law itself is not coercion --enforcement of the law would be defensive coercion, and that coercion would only take place if someone was defrauded. So, once again, libertarians favor defensive force, but oppose initiatory force. RJII 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

james deleting things for no good reason

james, why do you delete everything that's not a quote? Your're really screwing up the article by deleting obvious statements. Everybody knows that the fascist economies were not laissez-faire. Can you find a source that says they were? Every source there says that government was intervening in the economy. RJII 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced bit of original research. If it's that obvious, there's really no need to say it, don't you think? The article is not about laissez-faire. As you can see, we already have one of those. By including comments such as yours, you frame the article in a particular manner. Which is that governments are faced with a choice between "laissez-faire" and "fascism". That may be your view. You're welcome to hold it, but you must surely expect opposition if you try to force articles to accord with it. James James 03:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's factual that economic fascism is in opposition to laissez-faire. RJII 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things are factual. Encyclopaedias try to break the facts down into separate articles. That means that each article has the appropriate facts, not wildly inappropriate ones. Particularly those that bias the article to a particular point of view. Fascists opposed all kinds of things, but we don't note them in this article. Why? Because this article is not about these things. You've already quoted Mussolini as saying his system was a third way, so we know what the fascists themselves were aiming for. No need for your interpretation, hey? James James 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edit is another revert. You've tried to game the system by expanding the edit you're reverting to, but it's still a fourth revert. Please remove the passage in question. James James 03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I didn't revert. You really need to cut out your harrassment. RJII 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah well. I'll just take it all out tomorrow. It's the worst kind of POV pushing. You're trying to create a thesis. Mussolini did not discuss "laissez-faire" economics in the terms you suggest -- he simply didn't set up the dichotomy you are trying to frame this as. You also quoted him showing disdain for classical liberalism. He showed disdain for a lot of things, it ought to be noted, but curiously you don't note it. And you already sourced Dennis in the previous section! The exact same argument, pushed at two ends. When you start repeating the same nonsense in different places in an article to "source" your discussion, you've probably stepped over the edge as far as POV pushing goes. And yes, it was a revert. Expanding the text doesn't mean you didn't reinstate what was taken out. James James 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And it's not harassment to suggest that you remove a revert rather than get yourself blocked again. It's friendly. James James 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert. Not only is it harrassment, it's a lie. A created a whole new section that wasn't there before with new material. RJII 03:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not new. It's more of the same. Just because there's lots more doesn't make it fresh. Still, it's there. I can't be bothered jumping through hoops to get you blocked since it won't disappear anyway. You refuse to discuss your edits on talk but force them through regardless. So I'll be back tomorrow and I'll remove it then. It's a pity that's the way we have to work, but I guess you libertarian types don't go in much for social solutions, hey? James James 04:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing "twice" was yet another stealth revert. Not everyone who promoted fascism did so with that "stated" aim. That's not just POV pushing, it's an untruth. You mention two people who proposed fascism, so I corrected your editorialising to the perfectly correct "twice". If you can source others doing so, rather than adding them to the article, we can adjust the sentence to say "sometimes". If you can't, I insist you replace "twice". James James 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. You're out of control. RJII 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, you did your first bit of research, with Richman. Congratulations. Keep it up and be productive instead of just nitpicking my edits for no apparent reason. RJII 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your amazement. A proper, sourced edit, which balances the article. Put it in your scrapbook. Many more to follow. James James 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

SpinyNorman is censoring out this very relevant statement: "Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor said: "At the first meeting of the cabinet after the President took office in 1933, the financier and advisor to Roosevelt, Bernard Baruch, and Baruch's friend, General Hugh Johnson, who was to become the head of the National Recovery Administration, came in with a copy of a book by [Gio-vanni] Gentile, the Italian Fascist theoretician [Mussolini's Education Minister], for each member of the Cabinet, and we all read it with care." It makes sense for it to be there, because the article says Reagan doesn't point out who he's talking about when he says the New Deal was based on fascism. Hugh Johnson is one of those people --he was an admirer of the Mussolini plan and modeled the NRA after it. RJII 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant. Hugh Johnson wasn't a cabinet member - whether or not he admired Mussolini is irrelevant. What books the cabinet may or may not have read are irrelevant. And if you can't be bothered to spell Giovanni Gentile's name correctly, how can we be sure you understand the relevance of his writings? I believe this is just another attempt by you to try to equate the New Deal with fascism, which is simply incorrect and unsupported by anything apart from a handful of strutting politicians and economic extremists. --SpinyNorman 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hugh Johnson was the head of the NRA --the part of the New Deal that was found unconstitutional. RJII 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Spiny, do you have a source for your claim that "The term economics of fascism is used by some theorists, mostly anti-statist and libertarian polemicists" ??? I've only seen it used as the title of a conference on economic fascism. As far as I know, none of those theorists used the term. I could be wrong, but I'd like to see you source that. RJII 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense as I had it, as a description of the theory, rather than as a term that they use, which it isn't. James James 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Describe it as a theory or a term, just don't describe it as a foregone conclusion. --SpinyNorman 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perkins memory must be faulty. There was no such English language book by Gentile in 1933 -- all his books were in Italian except for two from pre-fascism days (one in philosophy 1922 and another on education 1922). (I checked all holdings at Library of Congress, Yale, and U of California) So maybe the entire FDR cabinet read a book in Italian? Or else Perkins, a very elderly lady at the time, got all mixed up. Rjensen 08:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Flynn

Flynn seems to be one source - u cannot extrapolate out from that and put the planned economy wikilinks all over article --max rspct leave a message 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a source. And you're deleting sourced information. Flynn is famous for comparing the US economy under Roosevelt to fascist economies. Are you going to force me to get even more sources and make the article look more biased? Rest assured, I can do that. RJII 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And, don't you realize that "central planning" links to planned economy anyway? RJII 17:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as Fascist economies are not defined as planned economy as USSR and Stalinist states you can have planned economy at top and in see also AND in Flynn's bit. BUT if you bring in more fringe sources to support YOUR thesis that Nazi Germany was a Planned economy as the Stalinist sates you will be out weighed my me and others. As Sohn-Rethel says >capital remained in private hands. RJ, this is a world away from almost complete state-ownership in Stalinist planned economies. The same goes for the anarchist article > just because there was debate over private ownership among anarchists it doesn't mean that a couple of 19th cent libertarians prompt the revision/censorship (and i use that word more justly than u) of the history of anarchist thought -- max rspct leave a message 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes capital was in private hands in Fascist Germany. That's the whole thesis here. There was private ownership, but as the editor of that section pointed out the State "sets prices, profit margins and the allocation of raw materials." So, full private property rights were not allowed. That's a planned economy. In a free market, a business sells its products for whatever prices it wants, take what ever profit it wants, etc. RJII 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No you are WRONG. U are constricted by your own very unacademic terms and limited reading. A free market does not equal capitalism. Pure capitalism has NEVER existed. You really are a far right troll or agent provocateur hey! - max rspct leave a message 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." -Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary Enough said. RJII 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The operative word being economic system (and why would it say mainly - because the 2 ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS). Capitalism is capitalism (and anyway wikipedia is not a dictionary) and free market is free market. That's why they have their own terms RJII. The same goes for your calling Emma Goldman a communist rather than an Anarchist or Anarcho-Communist, calling American anarchists 'American Individualists'... And what about your POV revisionism of articles like free market, capitalism, mixed economy, planned economy etc. Sigh .. A lot of people are waking up to what you are doing ... But whetehr you are doing this all deliberately or not is besides the point. If you are putting in highly contestable non-notable/fringe sources and creating POV insertions and inaccurate articles you will have them removed. This is not censorship - this is wikipedia... join the class action if u don't respect it. -max rspct leave a message 14:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It says "mainly" free market. Because an absolutely free market could only occur in anarchism. People rarely use the term "free market" in an absolutist sense. Get with the program. In Nazi Germany, there was private ownership of the means of production but the market was not "mainly" free --it was highly coordinated with investment decisions made by the state. Therefore, it was not capitalism. But, if you want to press the issue, there are plenty of definitions that don't say "mainly," For example: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Now, if the state is setting profit margins, then how on Earth can it be capitalism? RJII 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Now where does it say that capitalism is synomynous with free market? And where have i put all profit margins were set by the Nazi government? I will clarify this. Since as a trolling fascist yourself you will want to generalize anything put to mean THAT was government policy everywhere. How you can argue that a government commissions and partial direction of vital materials during an arms race has abolished the free market? Yes USA traded with Nazi Germany untill 1941. Yes both countries were capitalist with a free market. Yes the Nazi economy was different to that of the Weimar Republic. No it was not a planned economy as Stalinist states were. No USA was not a fascist state around the time of the war as it did not need to be. And don't start me on Italy by comparing Mussolini's ideology to FDR and New Deal. State intervention happened long before the term Fascism was coined - max rspct leave a message 15:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"the state sets prices, profit margins and the allocation of raw materials." Also, Buchheim and Scherner describe the system as a "state-directed private ownership economy." You're going to have to look long and hard to find a source that says the Nazi economy was anything approaching a free market. RJII 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sohn-Rethel: "The terroristic power of the fascist party serves not only to eliminate political enemies. It is the suspension of bourgeois laws which is the hallmark of fascism and it is by this means that it finally guarantees that the state can weild its entrepreneurial function smoothly and can aid and abet monopoly capital in its state of peril" -- max rspct leave a message 15:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Monopoly capital" --in other words government-backed protection of monopoly --the antithesis of a free market in capital. And the state is taking over the "entrepreneurial function." RJII 15:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And how do you interpret that? --max rspct leave a message 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In capitalism, the private sector takes care of the entrepreneurial function --not the state. RJII 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sohn-Rehtel says: "In this case capitalism can survive in the paradoxical shape of the 'corporate state' in which the contridiction between the social character of production and the private appropriation of capital assumes the form of a state-run economy on private account" In other words, capitalism becomes transmogrified into corporativism and the system becomes a planned economy. RJII 15:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not planned economy as in Stalinists states - very different set-ups. Hence "on private account" and "but capital remains in private hands" and "hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews, Slavs and other conquered peoples literally owned by German corporations" and its not State socialism is it? -- max rspct leave a message 16:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the essence of economic fascism. A planned economy with private ownership of capital. In socialism, it's a planned economy with state ownership of capital. RJII 16:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you just wasted hours of my time to come out wid that? --max rspct leave a message 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Now you are schooled on the fact that the German economy had no semblance of a free market. RJII 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself.. Remember there has never been a free market without some form of monopoly or market domination. And I can't see how you're ever going to support this theorem that Third Reich was not capitalist or free market -- max rspct leave a message 11:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom and NPOV tag

TomtheHand, according to Wikipedia policy, you're supposed to discuss in Talk why you're putting an NPOV tag on an article, so the problem, if there is one, can be fixed. I'm going to have to remove it again, unless you explain. No one else seems to have an NPOV problem with the article. If they do, they can put the tag on and EXPLAIN. The tag is supposed to be a tool so the POV can be removed. If you don't explain, then there's nothing that can be done to fix what you percieve to the problem. RJII 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, EVERYONE has an NPOV problem with the article. I have no idea why the tag was removed in the first place. The entire article misleads the reader into thinking that the middle ground between communism and capitalism is economic fascism. It is my hope that the NPOV tag will encourage others to come and contribute to the page. TomTheHand 18:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. No one has expressed a NPOV problem in quite awhile. You're the only one. So you need to explain the problem so we can fix it. The NPOV tag is not supposed to be used as a permanent branding just because you don't like the article. RJII 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My definition of "quite awhile" extends for more than a couple of hours, so I consider Ekpardo, max rspct, SpinyNorman, and James James, who all expressed the opinion that the article was POV within the last few days, to constitute an adequate group to say that there may be issues with the article. My issue is that the article implies that you can have fascist economics without being a fascist nation; that is, if you apply certain economic policies, you're practicing fascism. TomTheHand 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does it imply that? It simply mentions sources that claim that. No one has to agree with the sources. It even says in opposition: "It should also be noted that just because a nation or government has some of the characteristics listed above, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are employing the economics of fascism..." So where is the POV? RJII 18:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda!

The NPOV tag is on because you are writing an article of propaganda (saying democratic intervention = fascism), and writing it as a logical free-market economic theory WHICH IT IS NOT. Economists don't go around debating philosophy.

• A reader searching for this article would obviously be looking for comparisons between Fascist countries economic policies. Instead, the entire damn article is about different ways at viewing the convoluted arguement that any sort of government intervention in the economy = Hitler and Mussolini.
• This article presents pov arguements as facts. The biggest example of this is the use of the phrase "economics of fascism."
• The article provides false assurances of ligitimacy:

...just because a nation or government has some of the characteristics listed above, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are employing the economics of fascism, but may simply be sharing some or many similiar characteristics

Good thing that clears it up: don't make any mistake! The fascist charactaristics might not neccesarily mean the final solution is near, it could just be policy of fascists! A = a.

• Similar to actual fascist propaganda techniques, this article goes to great lengths to encourage a shallow view. Instead of there being many different policies, some of which fascists used in some form, this article follows the simple formula. fascists did A, instead of B, B is not fascist, therefore followers of A are fascist-like.

RJII is a professional, and it scares me.

Here are the techniques that the Nazis used in their propaganda:

1. Name Calling -- "Name Calling" is a device to make us form a judgment without examining the evidence on which it should be based. Here the propagandist appeals to our hate and fear.
2. Glittering Generalities -- "Glittering Generalities" is a device by which the propagandist identifies his program with virtue by use of "virtue words."
3. Transfer -- "Transfer" is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept.
4. Testimonial -- The "Testimonial" is a device to make us accept anything from a patent medicine or a cigarette to a program of national policy.
5. Plain Folks -- "Plain Folks" is a device used by politicians, labor leaders, business men, and even by ministers and educators to win our confidence by appearing to be people like ourselves—"just plain folks among the neighbors."
6. Card Stacking -- "Card Stacking" is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal. He stacks the cards against the truth. He uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to dodge issues and evade facts.
7. Band Wagon -- The "Band Wagon" is a device to make us follow the crowd, to accept the propagandist's program en masse.

--sansvoix 22:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to go as far as that, but the tone of the article isn't neutral yet, and the references are all very one-sided. I think we should aim for a stronger distinction between the (relatively consensual) political economy of Fascist states, and the view that any stat intervention constitutes economic fascism. In particular, I would like to see unbiased sources (which are currently very lacking) used to substantiate the points about how Germany, Italy, etc ran their economies. We can do better than quoting POV-ridden journalists and dodgy economists on those points, at least. The Land 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We've been saying that from the get-go, but for whatever reason the article is going in the opposite direction. Pick a few dates in the history and see how it has been changing.--sansvoix 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is fascinating -please continue - max rspct leave a message 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The more anyone pushes, the more I'm going to push with more sources. Do you really want that to happen? If you really want the economic policies in the fascist countries to be exposed then keep it up. Because that's the only outcome of the objections. I'm game. RJII 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a game. "Exposing the economic policies in fascist countries" sounds dangerously NPOV to me. I have already stated my view that we need more unbiased sources to back up most of the article. The Land 15:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing POV about that. I want the economics of fascist countries exposed. I couldn't care less what POV that exposition lends favor to. Let the chips fall where they may. RJII 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its making the accurate discription of fascist economic policies and an accurate discription of economic policies of modern "liberal" democracies. There is plenty of evidence that discusses the origin and uses of these economic policies...most of which don't really stem from wanting to help people but wanting to control the people and make them loyal to the state..late 19th century German, early 20th century Germany, and Italy are great examples because they were honest with their reasons. (Gibby 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Who u gibby - a far-right pal of RJII's? -max rspct leave a message 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is ignorance a virtue on Wikipedia? Libertarian is not far right...my god people! (Gibby 15:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Discussing economic policies of fascist countries is not propoganda. Having cited material where interventionist "liberal" democracies are criticized as sharing the same fascist economic policies is also not propoganda. Deleted. (Gibby 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

The article's neutrality is strongly disputed. See this page passim. Don't remove the tag. James James 08:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Spain

I've added some material on Spain, falangism, etc. just below the case studies of Germany and Italy. I'm quite aware of my inadequacies as a historian of Spain in the troubled period I've tried to evoke, and look forward to help in keeping this both factual and NPOV. (I'm glad that those who were working to delete this article have adopted the healthier course and are now working to contribute to it.) --Christofurio 15:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh, groovy. Who put this here: See a work by Stanley G. Payne, Falange. A History of Spanish Fascism Stanford University Press. Are you quoting from it? -- max rspct leave a message 16:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Its a general source for the period, that's all. In terms of sourcing, there's plenty more in the specific articles to which I've linked this section. And here ...

www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/falange.htm

... is a link to a site maintained by San Jose State University that makes the TVA connection. Caveat, I'm having trouble with that link myself this morning, but the SJSU web services unit tells me they're working on it. --Christofurio 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's cached: [7] RJII 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That link above is just by some bloke in silicon valley ...erm Thayer Watkins..... Oh it's been removed anyway - shame about your sources CristoFurio and RJII. -- max rspct leave a message 22:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that geography was a disqualification for source. What valley would you prefer the "bloke" be from? And the link is working again. --Christofurio 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Please do not insert tangential assertions that ideas from fascist countries were adopted elsewhere in the sections on the political economy of those countries. That type of comment belongs in the section at the end of the article
• Please provide sources for assertions like "Ronald Reagan though the New Deal was fascism" and "New Dealers quoted 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' ".
• Please allow the clear majority view about economic fascism space to breathe in the section about the Austrain school view, and refrain from adding more economists who support it. Then we won't list economists who opose that view, either.

This will help the article develop a more neutral point of view. The Land 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You changed the title of the section to "'Economic Facism' as a critique of all state intervention." Where do you see these people saying that all state intervention is fascist economics? I think it's clear that they're talking about an overall systemic thing. RJII 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's too strong. However, we can only have it one way. Either there is a general point about state intervetion, or there is a specific point about the New Deal. What we will not have is a section about the New Deal and a set of heavy implications about state intervention in general. The Land 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more than the New Deal, but it's also more than mere intervention --these people talk about the NEw Deal ias being the import of fascist economics but also talk about the accumulation of intervention that as a whole converts the US to a fascist-style planned economy. RJII 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case the article should say so, clearly. The Land 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to have a New Deal version of that paragraph in it, rather than a general one. The Land 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Source for the Reagan quote is an interview in May 17 1976 Time Magazine. RJII 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Is it listed? The Land 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it is now; thanks!

I'd like to see some sources that say the New Deal was not modeled on the fascist system. It's my understanding that that's pretty widely accepted. I'd think we need a source for the statement that "the argument that economic intervention on scales as large as FDR's New Deal are related to fascism is not widely accepted beyond some Austrian school economists." I'm not convinced of the truth of that. RJII 19:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there might be one or two sources arguing it was based on Keynesianism instead. The Land 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What seemed to cross ideological lines by 1932 or 1933 was the idea that lazziez faire capitalism was not going to end the Depression (except among the most ardent lazziez faire capitalists). My claims to economic knowledge are modest, yet a number of different countries were experimenting with government intervention and mixed economies. If that impression is correct - and better scholars please comment - then it seems this article faces two challenges: first identify the economic similarities between Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy; then identify the economic distinctions between these three states and other major powers. In particular, how did they differ from France, the United Kingdom, and the United States? I haven't seen Japan in this conversation but it may bear mention. Durova 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Can some fix the ref/note links? I have put 2 more in but has it messed the next down reference: {(note|Quine}} Quine, Maria Sophia Italy's Social Revolution, Palgrave

Slave Labour

Can someone quote what the reference given from Sohn-Rethel about "literal ownership" of slaves by German corporations. I don't think this is the case, sources about Auschwitz suggest that (for instance) the slave labourers there were under the control of the SS, not IG Farben.

A note on refutations of fringe views

Without involving myself in the debate, I would like to make a general observation: If a view is fringe enough, you will not find any refutations of it, simply because no scholar takes it seriously enough to be worth refuting. Suppose, for example, that a small group of fringe geographers argued that the Earth is shaped like a giant triangular prism. Would any academics bother refuting that theory? No. You will not be able to find anyone specifically saying that the Earth is not shaped like a triangular prism. Could you then conclude that no one opposes the Prismatic Earth Theory? Hardly.

Thus, an absence of refutations of a certain theory does not prove that the theory in question is widely accepted. It may be widely ignored, or widely considered too absurd to bother with. This is a general point to keep in mind for this article. Thank you. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. The Land 15:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the opinion that the New Deal, for example, was modeled on the Fascist system is not fringe. It's just common knowledge. And, that's why it might be hard to find refutations of that. It would be a blatant disregard for history. RJII 15:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the other problem is that those who hold fringe views consider them to be perfectly logical and "common knowlege". The idea that you can equate fascism and the New Deal is laughable. "Common it may be, knowledge it is not" - Peter Spence. --SpinyNorman 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

who cares what you think spinynorman, the fact is people have made the comparison and backed it up with an arguement. These people have been cited in this article. It is now your own pov and original research that prevents these cited statements (or tries to prevent) from being retained within the article. Learn to live with it...or better yet, come up with legitimate well reasoned refutations of your own...or better than that, find some already published. (Gibby 04:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

I'm curious, if the New Deal is modeled on a fascist system, then which system was that? The only fascist system that predates the New Deal was Mussolini's Italy. Hitler came to power after Roosevelt, so it is chronologically impossible for the New Deal to be modeled on Nazi policies. The same applies to Franco's policies. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A Note on Getting Chronology Right

If you're going to discuss what is "chronologically impossible," you have an especial obligation to get your facts right. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany more than a month ahead of Roosevelt's inauguration in the US. Using bold text for a false statement doesn't make it true. (here) You might have meant something other than his Chancellorship by the expression "come to power," but in that case you might have been more specific, and the impossibility you allege is would seem to imply that Hitler didn't have any sort of power prior to FDR's presidency.

Though frankly I disbelieve in any causal link, I'd like to make two other obvious points here about its possibility. First, the "New Deal" isn't some monolithic thing that was imposed in March 1933 and stayed in place thereafter. Well after the "hundred days," FDR engaged in many shifts of course and referred to each new shift as a new stage of the "New Deal". Follow the above link to verify if you like. So the term meant something different by 1937 or 1938 than it had meant in the campaign of 1932 or during the initial burst of legislation in the late winter and the spring of 1933, creating room for the sort of borrowing that your rather simplistic use of dates is designed to exclude.

Second, the fascists of Europe had been talking up their own theories long before they took power and (in Franco's case) they were largely inspired by a previous dictator, de Rivera. So the ideological influence of the European movements could have been a factor on the US developments from the start.

 --Christofurio 13:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

RJII, do not remove the NPOV tag. It is very clear that a lot of people consider this article needs more work before it is neutral. Thanks. The Land 16:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. As I said, there is no POV here. It is very factual to note the economic prefrences of fascist countries. It is also factual to note with citations refrences to comparisons made between governments like FDR's regime to the same fascist economic prefrences. The only actual POV here is those people who want to delete the page because they share the same economic prefrences and do not want an association with fascism. (Gibby 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Also note: Being a leftist, hating market economies, hating capitalism, or thinking property is theft, does not give you a right to slap tags on everything you disagree with while also preventing the placing of tags on subjects you do agree with...especially without discussion. The discussion thus far as not been convincing that this article is pov but only to the extent that complainers disagree with the cited primis in one section...that FDR's government could be associated or compared to fascist governments. Having this perception does not give you a right or the warrant to place tags on the article. (Gibby 17:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

The dispute is a real one. This is a clear attempt by a small group of people with a fringe view to attempt to lend that fringe view legitimacy by giving it a pseudo-scholarly write-up and neglecting to mention that it is a fringe view. While it is clear that certain fascist states in history have used similar economic controls, the attempt to equate non-fascist governments with them because of certain superficial similarities is bordering on libel. Until those aspects of the article are either removed as irrelevant or else properly qualified, the "disputed" tag should stay. It is more appropriate than the NPOV tag in any case. --SpinyNorman 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This tells me the one section you are in dispute with is the final one which equates the NEW DEAL, FDR's regime, and their successors as fascist. This is no "fringe" view especially considering it was one in which we have a U.S. President cited making such a comparison. There are many economists and other scholars who have noted that there are similiarities in both the policy and the outcomes of such policies (to an extent, for example the U.S. government hasnt murdered thousands of its own citizens), but that the outcome was intended as a measure for controling the populus and or making citizens loyal to the state. There is also no libel.

Beyond this, give specific reasons. (Gibby 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

May I point out for the 5th time, that all your complaints of "unverified" information, "pov" etc fly in the face of the citations provided...seriously have you all bothered to look at the links and citations? Or do you disagree so much that you could care less and simply want this page destroyed? (Gibby 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

I agree. A couple people are putting up an NPOV tag because they're are upset at the POV of the sources. As long as an article doesn't assert anything but rather gives sources for those that assert something, the editorial isn't POV. If they think something in the editorial is POV then they should be able to give recommendations so we can fix the percieved problem. The NPOV tag is supposed to be a tool to fix NPOV problems rather than a permanent branding on an article just beuase you don't like the POV of the sources. RJII 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If there's an article that quotes 15 different sources saying 'the Earth is flat', it's not NPOV. The Land 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

no, so long as the article notes that this is the opinion or belief of said source of citation there is no problem. This article mentions nothing about FDR being a Fascist factually only that his policies are considered fascists or to have fascist roots or similiarities by certain individuals. This is not a violation of the npov rule. I'm sick and tired of certain people making up rules as they go along and making these rules suite their political prefrences (Gibby 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

It certainly would be NPOV. You're not seeing that an NPOV tag is for problems with the editorializing being NPOV, not the sources. Anytime an economist (or anyone) says anything, it's an opinion and is therefore a POV. Pointing out the POV an economist does not make an article POV. If you can find sources from scholars saying that the Earth is flat, and you note them and quote them, there is nothing "POV" about that. RJII 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:NPOV. Differing views should all be covered, and covered broadly in proportion to their acceptance. The appropriate response to the hyopthetical example above would be to remove some of the flat-earth sources and add new ones. While this is going on, an NPOV tag is entirely appropriate. Furthermore, a consensus of editors on one side of the argument is not a consensus that we have an NPOV article. The Land 21:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Seems like there would be a tag for specifically that, though. Also, you probably weren't aware, but when you delete things and moving things around you need to adjust the references list. RJII 05:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys cant put up tags just because you disagree, that is vandalism. Discussion is required, please post specific complaints here! (Gibby 19:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

PLEASE NOTE that I have blocked Gibby for 24 hours for violating the Three-revert rule regarding this NPOV tag. The Land 19:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. Good show chappie! the NPOV tag stays as there are only about 6 people editing the article for the past few weeks and there is great disagreement -- max rspct leave a message 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Max why dont you provide one damn reason the tag should stay. ONe specific reason. | Look just above... try and pay attention! -max rspct leave a message 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 (Gibby 04:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, a NPOV tag is to be placed on any page that is claimed to be POV by any number of active editors. If some people are editing an article and accusing each other of POV-pushing, that means the NPOV tag should be put up. The NPOV tag should be placed on any article where there is a POV dispute. Is there a POV dispute here? Yes. End of story. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There doesnt seem to be a dispute, no one is making an specific reasons any longer. It seems to me as though the POV dispute has been settled except with one person who doesnt have any content problems but an ideological problem. Such a problem does not give him authority to place a tag. If he wants to place a tag he needs to have a content dispute. And when having a content dispute he must specify the content he has trouble with. (Gibby 16:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, stop edit-warring. The Land 16:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

GIVE SPECIFIC REASONS ASSHOLE! (Gibby 16:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Changes to 'third way' section.

I've redone the first section hoping that it will make more sense, so the discussion is arranged more by ecoonomic topic and is less a list of quotes. In the process I removed two source references. One was a second source backing up an uncontested point, the other was a reference to another encyclopedia. Hope this works OK. The Land 19:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent.. Does anyone have an opinion on Big Business in the Third Reich by Arthur Schweitzer. I have read an anthology of debate around Origins of the Second World War.. (with A.P Taylor and others).. In it (in notes) is mentioned that this Schweitzer book was first of its kind business and the Nazi regime. -- max rspct leave a message 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

I've changed this around a bit. I've moved the more general material about NAzi Germany to the top, and introduced the Michal Kalecki and military keynesianism concepts which are rather important. Then I've put most of the Sohn-Rethel in a subsection: am I right in guessing it's a very marxist analysis? The Land 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How "very"? .. according to the wpdia article on him "He joined the communist party and despite his disillusionment he was a member until 1972" (sound a bit like E. P. Thompson, perhaps Eric Hobsbawm or even Christopher Hill) The book i have been quoting from was published in german for the first time (according to amazon) in 1973 , in english in 1978. Have u come across the Arthur Schweitzer book above? -- max rspct leave a message 22:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of different reasons for quiting the CP, especially since that's dependent upon the course of the specific CP in question, so your analogies don't help answer your question about how "very" Marxist his analysis might be. At any rate, The Land's point seems a good one about the degree of emphasis he shoudl or shouldn't get here. He does have his own article, after all. If you think his particular theories need more expansive renditions, do so there. --Christofurio 13:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

"These characteristics are sometimes cited to support claims that economic policies under non-fascist governments are either inspired by, or share common values with, fascist regimes."

Does this really need 'incorrectly' added to it? I think it's difficult to say for sure that no policy of any Western government was 'inspired by' or 'shares common values with' any Fascist state. For instance, full employment was a fascist goal and is quite an economic policy objective. IMV it's more important to clarify the article so trivial similarities like this one aren't taken out of proprtion than it is to remove any suggestion that nice governmets might be like bad people. The Land 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. That would be "POV" --an outright editorial assertion like that. RJII 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV TAG III

The tag is on for illegitimate reasons. Reporting the economic policies of fascist governments is not a fringe view. Neither is reporting the opnions of critics of the New Deal and modern "liberal" government...especially if said critics are U.S. Presidents or NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS!!!!!!!!

This is not a content dispute these editors are having this is a last ditch ideological dispute based on little to no good reasons for such a tag. The disputing editors are likely more in love with the New Deal or economic intervention and do not want an association with fascism (Which they probably don't understand anyway) than properly editing articles or allowing factual and cited information contrary to their own beliefs be read on wiki. These editors are wiki bullies and vandals.

(Gibby 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

The Land, while I disagree with Gibby's position, I don't believe that anyone's contributions to the talk page should be deleted unless they are outright vandalism (blanking, random obscenities, modification of others' posts, etc). TomTheHand 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The Land 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I read the complaints about this article, the complaints are all about comparing fascism to the new deal. Thus a tag, which I put there, is more approrpriate than the entire article. Delete that tag please. (Gibby 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

No, there is also a major complaint that libertarian authors are given undue weight in this article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

YOu guys will use any bullshit excuse to vandalize articles. Undo? THESE ARE THE CRITICS OF THE SYSTEM!!!! That is why they are cited! They are the people making the complaints....that is another retarded excuse for a tag! (Gibby 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Are you suggesting that only libertarians criticize fascism? In order to be NPOV, the article should include a roughly balanced amount of views from libertarians, socialists, conservatives, and fascists themselves. Also, please note that the purpose of this article is not to criticize the economics of fascism, but to explain what they are. Finally, inserting a mere NPOV-warning tag can hardly be counted as "vandalism". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

no that libertarian minded people are largely the only ones who make comparisons to big government intervention in our government and that of the fascist governments. That is what you are really complaining about because the rest of the article is more like direct report and has no POV what so ever. Reporting the economic policies of fascists just is not POV. Period. Enough with the bull and start giving some real reasons. This is the 3rd day in a row I have asked for them and the 3rd day you and your collegues have bullshited. (Gibby 21:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Or libertarian socialists. Reporting that they are fascists is indeed POV, especially since they do not profess themselves to be - you are using a political etiphet. Reporting on activity in and of itself is not POV. However, mentioning it in an article about fascism can be disputed, as one is basically representing the view that the New Deal is the same as being fascist, etc. - and again, please do see the issues about undue weight. And please be civil. Do all libertarians use the word "bullshit" as freely as you? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, stating someone's published critical opinion is not a pov. Get it right. I reserve civility for competent people. And bullshit is the most discriptive word for the complaints about this page. (Gibby 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

That is indeed hypocritical in argument then. There also must not be undue weight. If there represent a minority view, ie. with not that much impact, then it must not dominate the entire article, or even have a large amount of weight that is more than it deserves, in this case, an entire section. Civility applies to anyone, not merely people you select, just as rights apply to all. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempted NPoV rewrite

I believe the present discussion of the NRA summarizes what the given sources actually show. Please present arguments that this should be reverted, rather than used as a basis for further development here. Septentrionalis 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be prepared to remove the NPoV section tag with this NRA section. Others? Septentrionalis 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Until this section changes, calling it more than The NRA is misrepresentation. The only claim for more is Richman's quite guarded single sentence about the AAA. Septentrionalis 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The section was about more than the NRA before someone just chopped it down. I plan on putting the section back in. RJII 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The present text is what the evidence supports. Exaggerated claims without evidence are to be deprecated; more evidence is always welcome. Septentrionalis 22:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing was full of evidence --evidence that people regarded these things as economic fascism. You deleted it. RJII 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it was full of quotes claiming that the NRA was similar to Mussolini's economic institutions; which statement I retained. That view is not new (and I agree with it); it can be sourced to Roosevelt's cabinet. It also contained one quote extending this to the AAA, which I also retained. If you have any quotes demonstrating other positions, please present them. Septentrionalis 04:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the additional sentence on the gradual in-sweep of fascism; it may be true; more to the point, it may be Ebeling's view; but the article does not claim it, as far as I can see. Please specify which words you read in that sense. Septentrionalis 04:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just tell you, you're just asking for stuff to be deleted. You're eliminating sourcing. For example, you made the assertion that the NRA "bore a certain resemblance, as an economic institution, to Mussolini's syndicalism" but you didn't source it. I don't like the way you're handling this supposed "npov rewrite." RJII 05:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the similarity? Septentrionalis 05:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of having a quality article, I do dispute it. I request a source. RJII 05:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, I recall some other New Deal memoirs recording the same comparison; but I'm not sure of which. Septentrionalis 05:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But I think Michelson and Galbraith. Septentrionalis 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A minor point: Trifković's work seems to be largely histories of the enemies of the Serbs; I am uncomfortable calling this politcal history. Septentrionalis 05:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The elder Rivera

Miguel Primo de Rivera controlled the government of Spain, with the acquiescence of King Alfonso XIII, in the 1920's. He believed in state planning and government intervention in the economy, while being opposed philosophically to socialism.

Is this intended to show Rivera was a fascist?

• If so, it also shows that Louis XIV was a fascist, for he had all these qualities.
• If not, why is it on topic for this article? Septentrionalis 06:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to the first question, no.

In response to the second, it's on topic, because it is important to the development of the falangist/fascist movement in that country. The source provided in the Spain section itself portrays the later fascists as nostalgic for the de Rivera period. Are you familiar with any sources on the subject that disagree? Just mentioning that the son had a father (d'uh) doesn't really express the continuity here. Dad gets a graf of his own! --Christofurio 13:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nostalgia for a better past, not yet corrupted by anti-national influences, was symptomatic of fascism. (So were claims to be the wave of the future; but that contradiction is another article.) The history of the Phalange is also another article, to which the present text links. Does Wilhelm II need to have a paragraph on these grounds (or Friedrich von Hohenstaufen, for that matter)? Septentrionalis 19:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Miguel is barely mentioned in that Falange article, too, so the link to there doesn't resolve Miguel's neglect here, as you seem to think. --Christofurio 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Then that's the article to fix. To quote an old template, so fix it.Septentrionalis 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's as appropriate here as there. If I inserted the material there, you or someone else might delete it and suggest that a link to economics of fascism would do the job. As Martin Luther said, "here I stand". --Christofurio 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I inserted it there, and will defend it, since it is about the Falange. Will you join me? Septentrionalis 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Septentrionalis

You overlooked the need to have a link to Dad's own article here. But I've just put one in. I won't quarrel further because, hey, I'm just an amiable sort of guy. It's one of the things I love about being me. ;-) --Christofurio 21:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job. The Land 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

References a bug?

Numbering references and attempting to number the notes so they correspond is an imitation of print, which is not continually edited as a wiki is. I would divide up the references, placing the notes for each section at the end of the section, and not use the # facility at all. But I have other places to experiment with this; so it is merely a proposal. Septentrionalis 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Economic fascism

Economic fascism differs, in tone and content from the economics of fascism; I see that RJII has never recognized this; but I invite him to reconsider the page-move discussion. In the meantime, the last section is entititled to a much simpler title. Septentrionalis 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's all the same thing. Economic fascism, fascist economics, fascist political economy, economics of fascism, political economy of fascism. Only using the phrase "economic of fascism" in the article is awkward and ridiculous. That phrase is not even used, in the first place, by theorists who assert the existence of a fascist political economy. I like it for the title of the article precisely because nobody really uses it, but there is no necessity to force that terminology in sentences --it comes out really awkward. RJII 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Mussolini and the NRA? Septentrionalis 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This, folks, is not an obviously relevant sentence. "When the NRA was found unconstitutional, many within the New Deal, including Adolf Berle and Harold Ickes, did not regret its passing." It is certainly true, but failure to "regret the passing" of an institution by itself doesn't imply any judgment about whether or not that something is an example of fascist economics. If I didn't "regret the passing" of the Nehru jacket fad of the late 1960s, would that imply a judgment on the imagined fascism of a very populous nation's founding fathers? --Christofurio 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I find the new edits to that section inferior to the previous version. The last version was sourced and had quotes, etc. RJII 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the paragraph includes Hoover's remark, it is worth noting that the comparison was supported within both parties. We wouldn't want this article to look like advocacy against the New Deal, would we? Septentrionalis 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any quotes from the names you cited that shows they thought it was fascist economics? RJII 02:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

A couple people are wrongly stating in the article that people explaining ecnomic fascism are saying that the practices are bad because fascists employed them. I'd like to see a source of this. I've seen nothing of the sort. RJII 04:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, you're adding sources about Reductio ad Hitlerum, but you're not giving any sources of anyone saying that the economic policies are bad because they were practiced by fascists. RJII 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all "people explaining economic fascism" employ that fallacy. But some people obviously do. I have just given you four sources in the article. What exactly are you saying? That Reductio ad Hitlerum does not exist? The fallacy is in fact quite prominent, and readers need to be informed about it. That does not mean I am accusing anyone in particular of committing it. -- Nikodemos 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that "Reductio ad Hitlerum" does not exist. I am saying no one has used it for this. You're putting it there making it look like the sources pointing out that fascist economics was tried in the U.S. were bad because fascists used those policies. But, they don't make any such claim. Putting that in is very deceptive and you have no source for any of them saying that. You're wrongly smearing these economists. RJII 04:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about those economists. I do not claim that any of them committed the fallacy. Actually, I'm more worried about readers committing the fallacy. -- Nikodemos 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then there's a more NPOV way to say that. I did a rewrite. RJII 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. I did a re-rewrite, mostly for clarity. -- Nikodemos 05:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Marginal sources - fringe concepts

An increasing amount of material on this page was being cited to publications of the John Birch Society, hardly a scholarly source. The Von Mises material is already marginal. This page needs to reflect a more balanced point of view. I have moved the block of text on Roosevelt and the New Deal to Fascism and ideology since that is where core material on the subject of Roosevelt as fascist resides. I did not delete any text, merely moved it, and left a link. This page needs to cite more mainstream views on the subject.--Cberlet 16:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should have removed the whole section. There is no requirement than anything on Wikipedia be "mainstream," but rather that it's notable. Anyway, what, to you, would constitute mainstream? RJII 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues:

One is that a handful of editors continue to replicate the same libertarian and ultra-conservative discussion about the New Deal and fascist economics on multiple Wiki pages, thus violating Wike policies about POV forks. The page for that discussion is currently at Fascism and Ideology. There are several options: We could move the entire section on fascism, corpotatism, Roosevelt, and the New Deal here to this page and deleted it from that page. We could leave it at [[Fascism and Ideology]. Or we could create a new page. We just had a whole discussion about this and a vote, though, and the decision was to leave it at Fascism and Ideology. There are still several duplicate paragraphs on this page that need to be cleaned up.

The second is that it is clear policy that Wiki favors the mainstream currents of scholarship from reputable published sources, and includes marginal views only when notable. Ludwig von Mises is a reputable published source, although his views on this matter are marginal. The John Birch Society is not in the same league as von Mises--it is barely on the same planet. This matter has also been discussed at length. I believe you are well aware of this ongoing debate. If not, I can supply some links.

Please note that I have defended retaining this material [[8]] here on Wike, I just oppose it being replicated on numerous pages.--Cberlet 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with the John Birch Society? They're notable and should be allowed to speak. Aside from that, that is not the only choice. There can be a small section in both articles. The last thing we need is for Wikipedia to become a source of only "mainstream" information. A major point behind creating Wikipedia is so all notable voices can be heard, not just the politically correct. Notable minority viewpoints should be represented in all articles where they're relevant to the topic. Anyway, I'm not so sure that the idea that the New Deal was reminiscent of fascist systems is not mainstream. It would be difficult for anyone to not see the similarities. Even major presidents pointed that out, such as Hoover and Reagan. I don't think it's a "fringe concept" at all. RJII 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. --Cberlet 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a great argument. I guess you win. RJII 02:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Obscure libertarian and conservative views dominate this page

I rearranged the text to demonstrate how marginal libertarian and conservative views dominate the page. The John Birch Society is considered to be fringe conspiracy theorists by most conservatives, especially William F. Buckley, Jr. who denounced them as such decades ago. I have no probelm with libertarian and conservative views being aired on this page, but they should be identified as such becasue so few serious scholars of the economics of fascism take them seriously. The idea of "economic fascism" is largely a creation of a handful of libertarian and conservative writers affiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.--Cberlet 03:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. President hoover also noted that the New Deal was fascist. I wouldn't call Hoover a libertarian at all. He was very interventionist. And, long before the von Mises instituted ever existed, people were noting it was economic fascism. This was the position from the start of the New Deal. And, I really don't understand where you're coming from, because advocacy of free market capitalism is MAINSTREAM. All this talk about "libertarianism" being "fringe" is bogus, if what you're referring to is economic libertarianism. RJII 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

After signing the Consumer's Pledge to shop at the Blue Eagle. But make that "Obscure libertarian, conservative and partisan views dominate this page. Septentrionalis 04:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I tried a major rewrite that attemped compromise & NPOV. The rewrite preserves most of the text, moves some of it around, and moves a small chunk to the Fascism and ideology page. I did remove the "unbalanced" flag posted by Septentrionalis (apologies), but I could not figure out where to put it without making some assumptions. I invite folks to read the new version and decide for themselves is a flag or flags are still warranted. I tend to agree that "Obscure libertarian, conservative and partisan views dominate this page." But I did try to make a good faith effort to rewrite it to be more mainstream and balanced. More work needs to be done. Some major scholars of fascism are simply missing from the page.--Cberlet 13:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken to think that the idea of fascist political economy is a "libertarian" and "conservative" thing. Socialists also speak of it. So, I think maybe the name of that section needs to be neutral. I see you've taken out the socialists and moved them to another section --why I don't know. RJII 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We all understand that the study of fascist economics cuts across political boundaries, the issue is that the article has been adapted and rewritten to feature "Obscure libertarian, conservative and partisan views" and we are attempting to fix this to be a more balanced and NPOV entry. Please do not pretend that this issue of POV pushing is a novel concept.--Cberlet 17:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Those who favor capitalism should not be ostracized from the discussion on the "general characteristics" of economic fascism. I don't understand why you have this other section for "libertians" and "conservatives." RJII 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the use of your word "libertarian" in this article. I don't think everyone you're calling a "libertarian" is actually so. Are you saying people like Flynn advocated legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc? RJII 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why you moved this to the intro (and as the first sentence, at that): "Some scholars and analysts argue that in the economics of fascism there is an identifiable political economy that is distinct from other systems, comprised of essential characteristics that fascist nations shared." That's not what the article is about. That was a side issue that was presented in the article. This article is about the various economic policies in fascist countries. There is a theory of fascist political economy that is a seperate issue. RJII 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, page is unbalanced and riddled with fringe views - mostly critics of US government state-spending. Interventionism is present within conservative camp. This [9] marks Flynn out as a Paleoconservatism, similar to traditional,One Nation conservative. -- max rspct leave a message 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This page,RJII, is about the political economy of fascism, not the narrow and POV issue of "economic fascism" as defined by a tiny handful of libertarian and conservative polemicists. We are supposed to use the title in the lead and bold it. Check out Wiki guidelines. Flynn is an "Old Right" conservative and "proto-libertarian." Just Google it. Translates to contemporary "Paleoconservatives." I removed the libertarian and conservative section and merged the text. In part, I was sorting this page for editing purposes. I moved out all the duplicate stuff to Fascism and ideology. You cannot commandeer this article to push your political POV at the expense of NPOV and mainstream research. Please try really hard to behave in a reasonable manner. You are already on probation for disruptive "tendentious" editing, especially relating to pushing a libertarian POV.[10]. Think about why that might be so. That this page is not just about the libertarian concept of "economic fascism" and corporatism (even though that is how you started it), can be verified by reading this discussion page. Please stop pretending you are not aware of all of this.--Cberlet 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying?! "Political economy of fascism" and "economic fascism" are two terms for exactly the same thing. And, I don't apprecate your threats and personal attacks. I'm trying my best to help this article by NPOV and make sense. The idea of a political economy of fascism is not orthodox. That's not what this article is about. It's about the economic policies of various fascist countries. And, you need to learn about the Wikipedia "assume good faith" policy. RJII 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree this page is "about the economic policies of various fascist countries." What you are trying to do is unbalance the article from top to bottom with fringe, marginal libertarian viewpoints that are considered anecdotal by the majority of serious scholars and researchers of fascism. It is not a threat to point out that you have attempted to POV push the libertarian viewpoint to the point that you are on probabtion for doing it. You are doing it again. I "assume good faith" yet note you are on probation. The good faith is the hope you will stop repeating your mistakes.--Cberlet 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You really need to cut it out with you personal attacks. And, not I am not trying to "trying to do is unbalance the article from top to bottom with fringe, marginal libertarian viewpoints that are considered anecdotal by the majority of serious scholars and researchers of fascism." You're the one that has been creating sections about libertarianism --not me. The idea that there is such a thing as a fascist political economy is FRINGE --whether it's from the libertarians or the socialists. THat's NOT what this article is about. Stop trying to convert this article to your fringe idea. And, don't try to censor or ostracize viewpoints about the economic policies in various countries just because they may come from someone who favors free market capitalism over socialism. RJII 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RJII, in your edit summary you state "this article is not about economic fascism. it's about economic policies present in various fascist countries." . But all you do on this article is try and compare New Deal (in USA) etc to fascist economic policy. Most of your sources are about this and bytheway have been regected and are definatly not orthodox.. contrary to what u claim. max rspct leave a message 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Look. I created this article and created it without the intent of putting the viewpoint that the New Deal resembles Italian fascism in the article. If you go back through the history you will find that I later added this in because someone requested it on the talk page. It is a notable viewpoint, since, afterall, U.S. presidents have made the claim. So, it deserves mention. I never intended this article to be about a "libertarian" viewpoint, but as an article that brings forth information on the economic policies of various fascist countries. I couldn't care less whether the analysis is from libertarians or totalitarians, as long as all sides are represented. It so happens that the Austrian School has done a lot of analysis on the economies fascist countries, and their views are as credible as anyone elses --and certainly notable. And, note that I am the one that brought in the socialist sources such as Salvemini and Schmitt precisely to avoid future accusals of only representing the free market capitalists (sources from free market capitalists are easier to find, so these had to be searched for). But, I'm attacked nevertheless as promoting "libertarian" views. It's pure B.S. It's not true. RJII 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To be more accurate, one President said outre things for the Liberty Lobby; let us not lay undue weight upon them. Septentrionalis 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So A TYPICAL POV FORK THEN!!! U have said 2 very conflicting things in the edit summaries today. U just started article for POV/original research on New Deal; But most of the contributors have been rightly writing about economics of fascism.. not what USA economic policy is/was about -- max rspct leave a message 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. RJII 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't you understand, RJII, that this failure to see when you are POV pushing fringe libertarian ideas is part of the problem?--Cberlet 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What libertarian fringe idea are you accusing me pushing? You really need to give some substance to your claims. What fringe idea am I pushing? RJII 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are hypocritical when u write "this article is not about economic fascism. it's about economic policies present in various fascist countries." Yet all u write about is what u view as the former -- max rspct leave a message 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Don't make things up. There is a difference between nothing that some think that the New Deal was similar to Mussolini's fascism and claiming that there is such a thing as political economy of fascism. And, that the New Deal resembles Mussolini's Fascism is hardly fringe, but pretty mainstream. If you think it's not notable enough to be mentioned, then you're very wrong. RJII 20:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:max rspct is correct. You keep rewriting the page to reflect a marginal libertarian viewpoint--and you can't even see it. You view the issue through a tiny aperture through which you actually see that the "New Deal resembles Mussolini's Fascism is hardly fringe, but pretty mainstream." This is an outlandish claim. It is ludicrous. --Cberlet 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're telling a utter falsehood. I have not been "rewriting the page to reflect a marginal libertarian viewpoint." I haven't even been rewriting the page. All I desire to see included is a small section noting that some view the New Deal as based on or resembling Mussolini's fascism. It's certainly a notable position, as US presidents have said the same thing, as have economists. I would like the article to concentrate on descriptions of the economic policies in Italy and Nazi Germany. You really need to back off with your bogus claims. If I didn't know better, just looking from your edits I would say you're pushing libertarianism. By the way, you need to be careful with the term "libertarianism," as it usually is understood to go beyond economics and into drug legalization, prositution legalization, etc. One who advocates free market capitalism is not necessary a "libertarian." RJII 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a variety of forms of libertarianism. You only mention one view. Original research and page dictatorship is not acceptable. You are relentlessly revising this page to reflect a narrow marginal view. Please try to edit with NPOV in mind. Please stop mistaking your marginal minority partisan POV for actual mainstream scholarship. Please refrain from further tendentious editing and page comments in which you refuse to see that you might not be 100% correct.--Cberlet 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What are talking about? All I did was request a source for an edit you made [11] and you flew off the handle and engage in a personal attack in your edit summary. [12] Why can't you state anything concrete about what you're claiming of me? What "tendentious" editing are you talking about? Answer or stop making the claim. And, for your information, I'm the one that brought the socialist sources into this article (Schmitt, Salvemini). What is the "narrow POV" that I'm supposedly pushing? Explain yourself or stop the accusations. That is, if you want to have any credibility here. RJII 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reread this entire discussion page. What it shows is that editor after editor has pointed out the libertarian bias in this article and your role in producing it. You are on probation for POV pushing libertarian POV. Yet you pretend--against all evidence--that you have no idea what I am talking about. I suggest that any other editor who has a question about this dispute start at the top of this page, and by the time they get here it will be clear that you have a pattern of conduct that violates NPOV through a passive aggressive relentless process of wearing people down. That's what I mean by tendentious editing. I went back over you last few days of edits and what I see is that no matter what I do, no matter what I move around, over time you begin to restore the libertarian bias to the article. And I have no doubt that you are not able to see that you are pushing a libertarian bias. That is clear.

I'll give you one perfect example. You brag that you brought in the original quotes from Schmitt. You did it in a way, however, that totally misrepresented the work of Schmitt so as to make it appear to be supportive of the libertarian POV. You masked one of the Schmitt cites to Di Lorenzo, a libertarian who in 1994 rescued the term "Economic Fascism" in an article in the June, 1994 issue of the Freeman, which is published by the libertarian think tank, Foundation for Economic Education. You placed the Schmitt text into the article to wrongly imply congruence with a libertarian viewpoint. I do not agree with Schmitt, yet I fixed the Schmitt section. That's NPOV editing. That's how to get credibilty as an editor.--Cberlet 03:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're not getting any credbility from me. You're obviously trying desperately to find something improper that I've done. That's all you can come up with? An empty claim about putting "libertarian" bias in the article and a claim that I wrongly implied a congruence with the libertarian viewpoint? You're wrong. They are in general agreement that economic fascism is "planned capitalism" --state planning over a private ownership economy. Schmitt even cites DiLorenzo on that. By the way, I think the Schmitt source is going to have to be deleted, because I don't think it's published. I put that in before I knew the policy on that. There may be a few others as well. RJII 03:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, stop making the claim that I put "libertarian bias" into the article. It's not true. Any editing I've done since you showed up was just to straighten things out. Obviously you came here with no clue of what this article was about and started deleting things and moving this around. What you were doing made no sense. I was just fixing your mess. RJII 03:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a better question. What would constitute a "libertarian" bias for this article? It seems to me that all sides pretty much agree that fascist states exercise a lot of control over private property and there is a merging of business and state interests. So, what would the "libertarian" bias be? RJII 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

<-----All sides do NOT agree. The definition you just gave is the narrow libertarian definition of fascist economics. That you cannot seem to grasp that there are different definitions is the main problem. You see your own POV as "reality." You do not see other points of view. Your editing reflects this.

Schmitt does not agree with Di Lorenzo. Schmitt wrote that her analysis is looking at the formation of neo-corporatist authoritarianism.

• Schmitt: [Fascism] expresses a determined level and degree - or less philosophically spoken, "intensity" of economic exploitation, political oppression, social discrimination and human alienation and as such keeps manifesting itself as the open face of the still predominantly existing, bourgeois-democratic social order ("capitalism" or profit production) that has spread to the four corners of the globe and that has begun to reach and probably surpass its own limits.

Thus Schmitt does not agree with your definition. You cannot cherry pick only those phrases from an essay that support your POV and ignore the context. Schmitt is putting forward an analysis that ends with:

• Schmitt: 3. In our times of a highly increased and accelerated centralization and monopolization of capital on a world wide scale, the normal functioning of profit production depends on a considerable degree on State-guaranteed profit and the growing interaction and "melting" of economic monopolies with their political representation in the State apparatus (what Di Lorenzo calls "planned capitalism" and what Ralph Nader denounced as the two, ("democractic-republican") faces of Corporate America).

All you did was select a phrase or two and insert it into this entry in a way that misrepresented Scmitt's arguments--and made it seem that Schmitt supported the narrow libertarian POV.

Schmitt's analysis flows from the Marxian concept of the reliance of late stage capitalism on political repression. This concept is not about intrusive government regulation of private enterprise anymore than a running faucet is the equivalent of the flood after a dam bursts. --Cberlet 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I created this article quite awhile ago by providing a small skeleton of an article with just the basics, hoping that others would expand on it, because I knew very little about the economics of fascist nations. I was the only contributor of ANY material and ANY sources for awhile, and instead of anyone taking the time to contribute any sources to the article a few just attacked me because there were too many "libertarian" sources. I created this article so I and others could learn about the subject. Others have been adding a lot of material to it since. If you know more detail, then by all means expand on what's there. You act as if I'm the writer of this article. As is stands now, I wrote maybe a quarter this article. I provided the Schmitt and Diorenzo sources and quoted them but did not mean to imply that Schmitt agreed with DiLorenzo on everything, or even most things, but only on the portion of what was quoted. It seems to me that we should look for commonality in various opinions --not infinite differences. My approach at the beginnning was to find consensus on certain points from a wide variety of writers in order to find out the essentials of fascist economic systems --because, frankly, I didn't know anything about fascist economics. And, obviously there are particular common points that rise to the surface. Contribute to the article, but don't accuse me of pushing "libertarian" POV on what fascist economic systems are about. It's not true. I don't even know what that would mean. If you can find non-"libertarian" sources, please add them. I was looking for more, but could not find more at the time. It seems "libertarians" have done the most analysis on this --probably because fascism is antithetical to individualism. RJII 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)