Talk:Economics of fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 A formal Request for Mediation related to this article
was filed with the Mediation Committee on 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Please see the discussion on the case's request page.
All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics of fascism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Schmitt source

I went ahead and deleted the Schmitt source. As far as I know it's not published. It appears to simply be statements [1] on a personal website, hosted by "Franz and Jutta". [2] WP:V says: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." RJII 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC) I also deleted the Anthony Gregory source. It too appears to be a self-published website thing. [3] RJII 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow in the course of this deleting the latter footnotes became unmoored from the numeric sequence. --Christofurio 02:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] social Darwinism

Hitler did not practice any form of Darwinism, muchless "social Darwinism" and Darwin's books were banned from Germany. He believed in the "Great Chain of Being," with Aryans at the top. This is a POV violation and needs to be corrected, or supported with a citation from Hitler's writings - good luck with that. I'm changing it to eugenics until that time. -- wildlifer

There is a significant difference between the Theory of Evolution and Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism does not even have to be based on Darwin's writings - it is simply the view that human society is improved by unrestrained competition and by the survival of the strong at the expense of the weak. -- Nikodemos 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

There is already talk about the "Economics of fascism" in the Italian Fascism and Nazi Germany articles. It seems to me that this article is redundant. The economics of fascism (the ideology) should be discussed in the Fascism article. The economics of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy should be foremostly discussed in the Nazi Germany and Italian Fascism articles. If the sections in those articles become too big, one can start talking about separate articles again. There is no need to talk about the economics of Italian Fascism and Nazi germany in the same article, neither the economics of fascist ideology needs to be discussed here. There is already a Fascism article and Corporatism article. Intangible 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point. However, if you look in the archive, you will notice that other editors have argued very strongly for a very long time in favor of keeping this article as it is. It was their belief that wikipedia needs a dedicated article to compare the economic policies of fascist countries. -- Nikodemos 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's political beliefs drew heavily upon Social Darwinism

This statement is WP:OR, because it is referenced to a primary source. I actually doubt Hitler was influenced by "Social Darwinism" proper. I think the term one is looking for is Eugenics. Intangible 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that statement, like the entire paragraph, is supported by the source I gave a few sentences down (Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", 1985, p. 76). I can look in the book and find the exact quote if you wish. I also remember having another book that talks about the subject of social darwinism and Hitler. I'll look there too. Eugenics requires that you intentionally select "superior" breeding partners and persuade or force them to have many children; social darwinism requires that you create an environment where "superior" individuals select each other and have many children. Hitler supported both. -- Nikodemos 16:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Errh, the original meaning of Social Darwinism is simply that one looks at society from a biological perspective. There is nothing in that that asks people to have many children, or any notion of "survial of the fittest." Social Darwinism as you define it, has little to with Darwin himself or Spencer. Hodgson writes:

“ Overall, the label of “Social Darwinism” is unhelpful and misleading. In its established context it serves the purpose of tolerating “Darwinism” in biology but entirely excluding it from social science. It lumps together and dismisses a whole host of varied and important developments in the 1870–1914 period that in some way developed or maintained links between biology and the social sciences, including the careful use of biological analogies in the analysis of social evolution. We should be critical of racist, sexist and imperialist ideologies, but these emanate neither from the act of linking biology with the social sciences, nor from the principles of Darwinism...It would be better if the use as a descriptive term of the highly ambiguous and imperfectly grounded phrase “Social Darwinism” were discontinued. It would be clearer and more effective if authors criticized more directly the readily identifiable and less ambiguous ideological ills of racism, sexism, imperialism or eugenics. ”

Intangible 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that quote. "Social Darwinism" is a misnomer, and gives an impression of intellectual legitimacy to a bunch of social theories that are complete hogwash. Not only that, but Social Darwinism is unrelated to Darwin. Unfortunately, here on wikipedia we cannot change the names of things... so we'll have to keep calling it Social Darwinism because that's what scholarly sources call it. And on that note, here are some quotes from my sources:

“ [Hitler's] commitment to economic competition and private property derived not from expediency but rather from his fanatically held Social Darwinist beliefs about the nature of mankind and human society. [source: Henry A. Turner, German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Oxford University Press, 1985. page 76. ] ”
“ In his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), published in 1926, Hitler drew on the ideas of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest to provide a quasi-scientific justification for the need for racial purity, which became a core doctrine of the Nazi movement. [source: David S. Mason, Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1989: liberty, equality, solidarity, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. page 88.] ”

-- Nikodemos 01:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting quotes. But taken together they seems to be inconsistent. For example, in Mein Kampf, Hitler proposed that land-holdings should be nationalised (although this was latter removed from the Nazi programme). It seems to be me that Hitler's "commitment to economic competition and private property" derived much more from pragmatism than anything else.
Yes, fascism was, above all else, pragmatic. It is not right-wing, it is not left-wing, it is a dictatorship of the middle. Generally speaking, most fascists had left-wing rhetoric while campaigning, and turned sharply towards the right while in power. One thing fascist movements had in common was an appeal to the people to gain power, followed by an appeal to the preexisting elites to consolidate and keep it. Scientz 01:40 PM, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Have you thought about the split of this article btw? Intangible 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No reason to split this article. --Cberlet 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive contribution. I think I will just have to file an AFD then. Intangible 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General characteristics of fascist economies

This section might have some overlap with other articles such as Fascism and ideology, but simply deleting the section is hardly appropriate. Suggest some trimming and moving, maybe?--Cberlet 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't agree with the section, and find the claims tiresonme and part of the baggage of marginal right-wing POV and superficial analysis that infects articles relating to fascism on Wikipedia. The material, however, is properly cited, and should not simply be deleted. Discuss please.--Cberlet 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism

I would appreciate if you didn't remove the Hitler quote about socialism. Fascism is basically socialist. Yes some private property is allowed in the cases where it is not nationalized but it is controlled and guided for the good of society. Billy Ego 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.--Cberlet 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascism is basically socialist. Billy Ego 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That is completely false. Socialism is in favor of egalitarianism and fascism is opposed. Socialism believes in the well being of the individual. While fascism makes the individual a servent to the state. Fascism is for the benefit of the state and socialism is for the benefit of the individual. --Jfrascencio 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The state is just the vehicle for serving the common good. In facism everyone serves the state who in turn serves the people by making sure that resources are distributed in an equitable manner. It makes sure that profiteers and usurers aren't exploiting the people. Serving the state is serving the people. The people are the state. Nothing is outside the state. Billy Ego 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The state under fascism is like a huge company with hierarhies. The individual is not serving the people, but the interests of the state as determined by a dictator. Fascism is known for economic productivity that exceeds even free market capitalism. While socialism is an egalitarianist system where the people are receiving state welfare, they receive housing, they receive hand-outs. Socialism/Communism is known for having weaker economic productivity, because there is no motivation.
"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State" -Benito Mussolini
The state under fascism does not exist to serve the individual. Just like in a factory, the workers serve the will of those higher up in the factory, not the other way around. Under fascism there is no equality.
There is free market capitalism where the individual serves the wealthy and those who own the means of production and the means to provide services.
Then, there is fascism where the state and state subservient private individuals owns the means of production and the means to provide services for the benefit of the state and its interests.
Then, there is communism where the people own the means of production and the means to provide services. There are systems where various collectives or groups (such as worker's councils), or even the government is the owner, but this is always done on behalf of the people. It is like a factory where the factory is owned by someone, but the owner allows people to use the factory's resources for the benefit of all or the individual.
Then there is socialism which is described as a transition from a capitalist to a communist economy by Marx. --Jfrascencio 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That vote was on changing the title of Nazism not on the economics of fascism. Any editor who interpreted it as such had flawed reasoning. The quote should stay because it is relevant to the section.JoeCarson 11:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Apart from nationalizations of some industries, private property was allowed but property rights and private intitiative were contingent upon service to the state." If apart from limited nationalizaton, private property rights were allowed, then in what sense can they be seen as contingent upon service to the state?
  2. I think the article also needs to stress fascism's anti-labour agenda more. There is a mention in one place that it was anti-union, while later it says Mussolini upheld the right to strike. In reality, in the Black Years before coming to power, in opposition, Italian fascism's main activity was violently breaking up strikes (as with the proto-fascist pistoleros of pre-Franco Spain) - and in power, Mussolini may have given lip service to the right to strike, but did he allow it to be carried out?
Both these examples evidence the discrepancy between fascism's occassional public use of socialistic rhetoric, while their actual practice was rather different. Consequently, stressing the former rather than the latter skews teh article - presumably to make a point. BobFromBrockley 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first point. (The second point I have no opinion/knowledge on)--DorisH 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material cut a few days ago

These sentences got lost during an edit by Billy Ego a few days ago. I think they are vital and should be put back in:

One significant fascist belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening.[1] As a result, fascists considered the economy to be of little importance and did not have clear economic views. [2]

  1. ^ William G. Welk, Fascist Economic Policy, Harvard University Press, 1938. pp. 38-39
  2. ^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", 1985, pp. 61-68

--DorisH 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. BobFromBrockley 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Question dudes Is this sort of reference permitted? How is it verified? Cloveoil 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In an amazing building called a "Library," which contains information printed on paper.--Cberlet 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OMGZ DUDEZ!!!!!!!ONEONEONE THAT^S CRAZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! I"D NEVAR HAV THOT OF THAT!!!!!ONEONEELEVENELEVEN. Instead of replying with smart ass comments, how about trying to answer the question? Believe it or not, nor every single library in the world has every single book ever written! OMGZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloveoil (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/c/o/Talk%7EEconomics_of_fascism_8793.html"