Talk:The New Deal and corporatism

.

Creating this specific page Nikodemos was a great idea. --Timeshifter 03:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Support: A merger of text from Fascism and ideology seems like a good idea. --Cberlet 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Usually it is considered good manners to wait a few days to let an actual merger discussion take place before unilaterially making the merger.--Cberlet 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In my mind this page is, first and foremost, a necessary page. It needed to be created. It stands on its own merits. It allows for a much fuller discussion. It is a side benefit that sections from other pages can be merged with it. --Timeshifter 23:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the New Deal is not a matter of ideology. Whether the New Deal contained aspects of corporatism or not has no bearing whatsoever on the ideological nature of fascism. -- Nikodemos 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Marginal POV needs to be made clear

This page now lacks the proper context to point out that this is a very marginal view, and that few serious scholars agree with Reagan or the libertarian ideologues.--Cberlet 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many viewpoints concerning the New Deal and corporatism. Many are noted on the page. I believe your viewpoint is the marginal one here. That viewpoint being your seeming mission to pigeonhole this and that as being Libertarian. I humbly suggest that you ease up on this mission of yours. WP:NPOV means that the many various viewpoints are put on a page, and that readers are allowed to come to their own conclusions. --Timeshifter 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is a common view. Fascism was a term to mean nationalist centralized control and that's exactly what the New Deal was with the NRA, tariffs and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A proposal concerning WP:NPOV

I believe we all need to follow WP:NPOV, and to try not to let an ideological or other agenda rule our edits. Wikipedia is not "right" or "left". Please everyone. Let us not start arguing about everything again. We all have our own viewpoints, but we can't let our viewpoints spin a wikipedia page against wikipedia guidelines. .

I mean we can't delete some viewpoints, or denigrate others. I suggest we just put out the various viewpoints, as per WP:NPOV, and let the readers decide. --Timeshifter 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Utter baloney. NPOV means reporting the majority view of reputable published sources. This entire page represents a marginal minority view. To suggest otherwise is POV. --Cberlet 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and stay cool. We both get a little too heated in our discussions. Follow your new resolution to not to be snippy. From my reading of the info there seems to have been a lot of discussion at the time about these issues. I suggest you stop trying to put some kind of Fox News type of spin on everything. I mean emphasizing some viewpoints, marginalizing others, applying the Libertarian label to viewpoints, etc.. Also, please stop creating straw dogs, red herrings, false dichotomies, etc..

The Libertarian Party did not exist in the 1930s. Ronald Reagan was not a Libertarian. Many Republicans rail against the New Deal for the same reasons as Ronald Reagan. I try not to think of everything as ideologically as you do. Most people are not ideological. Your attempts at labeling historical events along ideological lines is a common fallacy. A simplistic overlay over complex events. --Timeshifter 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you seem to be the one attacking with ad hominems and poor arguments. Having a balance of the reputable majority and the marginal minority is dishonest and misleading. The validity of the view is what is important, not representing every view equally (which, of course, would only promote confusion and disinformation). The validity of a view primarily decides whether it should be included or not. Also, the page currently appears to be quite biased. --Sicjedi 12:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not used ad hominems. The article is weighted towards mainstream sources and viewpoints. Other viewpoints are also indicated, but with less text. That is how WP:NPOV requires that it be done. WP:NPOV, though, does not allow favoring any particular viewpoint. Especially in the narrative voice of wikipedia. Wikipedia does not choose which viewpoint is more "valid." --Timeshifter 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I removed this Cberlet addition below from the article. Cberlet added it today.

Today some people from both the right and the left use the term "corporatism" to imply an element of fascism, although the vast majority of scholars of fascism and capitalism reject this oversimplification. A handful of scholars and analysts, however, have developed a minority viewpoint that sees a significant set of similarities linking fascism, corporatism, and the New Deal.

My edit comment was "Deleted unsupported analysis. Let the sourced info and viewpoints speak for themselves. Unsourced interpretation of that info by editors comes under No original research. See talk."

The original (slightly revised) sentence remains: "Today some people from both the right and the left use the term 'corporatism' in various ways."

Economic corporatism is not always political fascism. The discussion both in the 1930s and the last 30 years made this distinction between economic and political corporatism or fascism. People in the 1930s did not label all aspects of the New Deal as being in the model of Italy's economic fascism or corporatism or the corporative state. It seems some aspects of the New Deal were not so labeled. The article is clear on this. So your analysis is inaccurate, simplistic, and is original research. And it is unnecessary. Let people decide for themselves from the sourced info. If you can find some sourced analysis, then by all means please put it in the article. I request though that you identify clearly the source, and not state it as any official wikipedia overall analysis. --Timeshifter 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently on the wikipedia page is this sourced analysis by an historian:

In a 2002 book historian Benjamin Alpers concludes:

"A second major source of the decline of dictatorial rhetoric following the spring of 1933 was the disenchantment of American business with the Italian economic model. Much conservative business support for a dictator or a "semi-dictator" had been related to the idea of establishing a corporative state in the United States..... The last gasp of support for Mussolini's solution to the problems of labor and management may have been the publication of Fortune magazine's special issue on the fascist state in July 1934. Business approval of government intervention in capital-labor relations had begun to wear off as the business community began to actually experience it under the NRA; it discovered that such an arrangement, at least in its American incarnation, meant state involvement in business, not self-government by wealth...."

Source: Benjamin L. Alpers. 2002 book: Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s. University of North Carolina Press. Text online of introduction to 2002 Benjamin L. Alpers book

The majority scholarship on Fascism, Corporatism, and the New Deal refutes 90% of this page. It would be dishonest and POV to suggest otherwise.--Cberlet 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggested nothing. I let the sourced info and viewpoints speak for themselves. I never said anything, and the sourced info says nothing, about the popularity or majority scholarship of the info and viewpoints. By the way, 90% of the sourced info was copied from the wikipedia pages for Fascism, Corporatism, and the New Deal. It is you who are putting your original research into the article. Please stop doing so.

From the wikikedia page on reliable sources is this: "Claims that 'most' or 'all' scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources."

From the wikipedia page on citing sources there is this: "Note: Wikipedia articles may not be cited as sources." --Timeshifter 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What has happened on this page is that every snippet of marginal POV material on this subject that claims it has merit has been brought to this page from other Wikipedia pages, but no significant amount of material that demonstrates that the material on this page is marginal POV rejected by the majority of scholars has been included. This page is one long POV essay. It is biased and intellectually dishonest. I have flagged it as "totally disputed," and unless material is allowed explaining that the entire page is a marginal POV, I will post the page for deletion.--Cberlet 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos and I copied almost everything we found on the New Deal and corporatism from other wikipedia pages. I excluded nothing that was sourced. I also copied over the reference links. I have since found a little more sourced material and put it on the page. A lot more work is needed. Nikodemos only created this page 3 days ago. Nearly all the material has already survived long editing on the other wikipedia pages. I have no objection at all to you or others putting in sourced info that says this and that viewpoint is marginal. But it has to meet wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating a page that omits the original context of the other pages where this marginal view on corporatism and the New Deal was put into context is intellectually dishonest and POV.--Cberlet 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from putting more sourced material on this page. The views on the New Deal and corporatism come from many sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Wikipedia is NPOV. It is not spun according to this or that person trying to rewrite history into acceptable and marginal points of view. You really don't understand NPOV. You are saying that creating a page is intellectually dishonest and POV if the other editors do not allow you to interpret and classify the info according to your ideological classifications, and chosen context. History according to the original research of Cberlet. Stop calling us intellectually dishonest. And stop with the abusive edit summaries. From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." --Timeshifter 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, I absolutely agree that this marginal view on corporatism and the New Deal must be put into context, and the current article needs a criticism section. The reasons why this material should not be put into other articles are (a) there is clearly enough of it to warrant a separate article, and (b) putting it in other articles tends to lead to duplication (the same text appearing in several different articles). I agree with you that the view under discussion here is marginal (and, according to my personal POV, utter hogwash), but this is neither the first nor the last wiki article that deals with a marginal POV (see, for instance, Flat Earth Society - I'm sure you agree that their views should not be mentioned in an article entitled Shape of the Earth). -- Nikodemos 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One has to make a distinction (as you do) between one's personal opinion of various economic theories, and wikipedia coverage of a particular topic. The description by historian Benjamin L. Alpers is not marginal. It is just a description of what actually happened in the 1930s. People, ex-presidents, and magazines at the time made accusations of corporatism concerning Roosevelt's policies. And Roosevelt responded. All of that is in the article. None of it is marginal, because it is simply descriptive. It actually happened.

Later analysis years or decades later can be broken down according to who made the analysis. I have no problem with fully describing each person making the various analyses. If they self-identify themselves as Libertarian, then let us reference that. Did Ronald Reagan ever self-identify himself as Libertarian? What about Herbert Hoover, Robert Locke, Srđa Trifković, William P. Hoar, Lawrence Dennis, John T. Flynn, Sheldon Richman, Ellis Hawley, Theodore Saloutos, Stanley Payne, Leuchtenburg, Richard Ebeling, William P. Hoar, Cynthia A. Janak, etc.. We should summarize each person's affiliations. With sources to backup those summaries. --Timeshifter 13:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodie. Let's start with William P. Hoar, a senior writer for the John Birch Society.--Cberlet 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In the article he is identified as "of the John Birch Society". If you can source that additional info that he is a senior writer for them, then please feel free to add that info. By the way, Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan were Republicans. We need to mention that, too. Some people may not know that. :) --Timeshifter 14:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it "hogwash" that Mussolini himself said that the New Deal was identical to the Fascist system? "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation," said Mussolini. He would know, wouldn't he? These things are facts. It was very similar to Mussolini's Fascist economic system and that's obvious to anyone who is familiar with both systems. But the Supreme Court struck down the Fascist corporate state that FDR was setting up. The U.S. Constitution apparently doesn't allow that kind of control over the economy by the government. Instantiayion 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropriateness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to argue that the page The New Deal and corporatism is POV and biased towards obscure marginal views, and that it needs a disclaimer that many of the cites are to idiosyncratic views not shared by most major scholars. I invite everyone to participate in the collaborative construction of a solution to this longstanding debate.--Cberlet 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't currently edit on any of the pages listed except The New Deal and corporatism. The reason I edited on any of the other pages in the past was to aid in keeping material on corporatism. That material has since been moved to The New Deal and corporatism. I don't see any need for mediation on this page. I am not interested in editing on the other pages. So whatever happens on those other pages is not of interest to me. I have never edited on the first 6 pages listed on the mediation page (the national socialism pages, nazism, socialism, collectivism). I don't currently edit on any of the pages listed except The New Deal and corporatism. I have no interest in editing on any of the pages listed except this one. You need to go through the normal dispute resolution process for The New Deal and corporatism. The other editors on this page have no problems with my edits on this page. --Timeshifter 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the editors, but the reader first would appreciate a clean-up and the use of a lead, and assuming that Cberlet is the only to have a problem is a misconception. Tazmaniacs 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote of Huey Long praising the Supreme Court for having saved the US of fascism is particularly hillarious... I am sure everyone is aware that Long is the primary, and often only example given of a fascist political leader in the States - at least in my history textbooks ? hum, aren't some people mistaking this page for Unencyclopedia's parodies ? Come on, be serious, use secondary sources as requested per WP:RS and pay close attention to WP:Undue weight. Tazmaniacs

WP:NPOV requires showing all significant viewpoints that meet WP:Attribution. Not just the ones we like. Cberlet is just trolling and canvassing for his marginal interpretations of the wikipedia guidelines. Don't fall for it. --Timeshifter 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter sank the mediation by refusing to agree to mediation. I suggest that we notice this page for deletion as a clear POV fork. Comments?--Cberlet 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It was sunk to begin with because the premises for mediation were a mishmash of your complaints from many pages. It was another attempt on your part to place your original research on wikipedia pages. Try sticking to specific complaints concerning specific pages. And back them up with the relevant wikipedia guidelines. And go through the normal dispute resolution process before escalating to mediation. --Timeshifter 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate paragraphs

What is the argument for having two pages with the exact same paragraphs? All I did was cut the paragraphs that were duplicated. Would editors rather thave the paragraphs on this page and not on the other page? Fine. But just reverting back to massive duplication is ridiculous.--Cberlet 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please make your case on the talk page first before deleting sourced info.

It is common for spinout articles to duplicate the info from the overview pages they come from.

See the Iraq War page for an example of an overview page with many spinout articles. Most of the info is copied or paraphrased into the spinout articles.

The New Deal and corporatism info came from several other wikipedia articles that were overview pages, and/or were not as specifically focussed on The New Deal and corporatism. We talked about some of this already on this talk page, and on other talk pages. --Timeshifter 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have objected to the duplication and redundant posting of marginal views from the beginning. This entire page represents a marginal minority view. On top of that, the material that is duplicated has no significant relevance to this page. What merit does it have on this page? --Cberlet 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. See previous discussion. --Timeshifter 07:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a mess.

This article is a mess. Changes that could improve the article have begun, but I wonder if this shouldn't be redirected. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not even a likely or needed redirect. — goethean 20:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Capitalismojo but your changes were no improvement. Please refer to articles which at least include the words "New Deal" + "fascism" or "corporatism" instead of writing original research or personal opinions.

I would agree that the article is a mess anyway. Redirect to Corporatism oder New Deal? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I haven't been trying to add opinion one way or the other. This article was an essay-like mish-mosh. I've been trying to wikify it. (with some difficulty). Capitalismojo (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably misinterpreted your intentions. The article is still a mess. Non of the cited sources have been thoroughly read and fairly presented and futhermore the presented ideas are not representative/ballanced (and most of the cited authors are pretty unknown). It could be rewritten into a "List of people who somehow compared the new deal to fascism" without any actual loss of information. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)