Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of fascism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics of fascism

Article contains no factual arguments, rather is literally full of selective quotes. Cited single POV arguments are based on the biased and innacurate assumption that Fascists had their own economic ideology distinct from both "capitalism" and "socialism and communism." This assumption is used like a straw man to attack the New Deal and government intervention as "fascist." Article does not address correlations between Fascist economic policies, it is simply a tool for ideological smearing. In the interest of accuracy and NPOV, Economics of Fascism needs to be deleted.--sansvoix 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Wikipedia definitely needs an article on the economic policies that existed in fascism (an article distinct from generalized fascism). The article is well sourced and NPOV. The article doesn't assert anything, but presents sourced assertions. Note that even the father of fascism, Mussolini, said that the economic system was distinct from capitalism and communism. The New Deal section must be in there because it's a notable view; it's been attacked since its inception as being modeled on fascist economics (if it seems like a large section, it's only because the rest of the article still awaits further development). I think the article, now in its infancy, has a great future. RJII 21:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep agree with above TheRingess 21:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per RJII. This was debated at great length last month Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2. The nominator presents no new arguments and has not linked to the previous AfD. Frankly, I'm sick of seeing the same articles every few weeks here. -- JJay 21:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: RJII has compleatly changed the article since the last AfD. See the December 2nd version: [1]

• Comment: Noam Chomsky- "Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism." Business Today, May 1973 [2] -- JJay 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Benito Mussolini: "fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics." So, yes, there is a distinction between political fascism and economic fascism according to the father of fascism himself. RJII 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Economist Lawrence Dennis claimed the adoption of economic fascism would intensify "national spirit" and put it behind "the enterprises of public welfare and social control."--sansvoix 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Maybe we should take this side conversation elsewhere?

• Keep. Despite the neutrality issues, this seems like a more than reasonable spin-off subject to the concept of facism. I would think there are more than enough eyes here to get this article into shape if in fact it's too POV. - Liontamer 21:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. The term has rarely been used as anything other than a slur, and there is no agreement whatsoever between different authors on the proper definition of "economic fascism". The economic aspects of fascism can be discussed over in the fascism article. The various assertions regarding "economic fascism" by different authors can be discussed in the articles dealing with those authors and their respective ideologies (since the term has almost always been used as an ideological stick with which to beat one's enemies). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: What "term"? "Economics of fascism"? That's a slur? Nonsense. That's just a generic phrase. Call the article whatever you like --use whatever terminology you like (political economy of fascism, economic fascism, fascist political economy, fascist economics, etc) But, there is no sensible reason to be opposed to a Wikipedia article devoted to discussing economic policy in fascist regimes. RJII 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yes there is. Since fascism refers to a specific kind of political regime, an article on the "economics of fascism" makes as much sense as articles on the economics of monarchy, economics of republics or economics of federal states. Given the vague nature of the term "fascism", I might even add economics of countries whose names end in -ia. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment:If any of those are notable and seriously discussed, start an article on them. The fact is, discussion of the economic practices under fascism is very widespread --definitely notable. RJII 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It's only widespread because of the stigma associated with the word "fascism". In popular culture, "fascist" is a synonym for "evil". I agree with Orwell that the word has become largely meaningless. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: So what are you saying? You think fascism is not evil? (not that the article makes such a value judgement) RJII 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I do not believe there is such a thing as "fascism" (in the sense of a distinct political or economic system, or even a coherent ideology). Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany did not have a unique political or economic system - they were just your average nationalist dictatorships. The fact that Hitler happened to kill more people than your average dictator doesn't change anything. And fascist ideology was never clear and coherent, not even to the fascists themselves. But this is off-topic... The point is not what I think, the point is what the majority of people think and the stigma they associate with fascism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep subject to cleanup. There is scope for useful discussion on Wikipedia of the nature of economics under fascism. This doesn't necessarily need a separate article from fascism or corporatism but it may be helpful. However, in its current form the article isn't terribly helpful as a discussion of the topic. There's some confusion with the previous name of this article, "economic fascism", which appears to be a term and theory of the relationship between fascism and economics specific to certain theorists. Presented as such, properly sourced, this is not a problem - the difficulty is if this theory dominates the article. One solution would be to give it a separate article (economic fascism), which could be devoted to describing that theory and its development. Rd232 ^talk 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment:I think you're misguided on that. "Economic fascism" is just another way of saying "fascist economics." You see a few libertarians using the term "economic fascism" in their articles and it's throwing you off (note that socialists also use the term). It's a commnon phrasing, as in "economic individualism," "economic nationalism," and a term that is not used much anymore "economic socialism." There is no need for a seperate article. Everyone is talking about the same thing ...the economic practices in fascism. Also, it certainly does need a seperate article from corporativism, as there is more to the economics of fascism than corporativism. RJII 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree that "Economic fascism" is just another way of saying "fascist economics.". Look at the people who mostly use the former term: it's primarily designed to allow "fascism" to be used to describe economic policy in democratic states, by driving a notional wedge between fascism and the political sphere (which contradicts the essence of fascism, which is political). There's also the linguistic issue: economic fascism is no more the same as fascist economics than lemon coke is the same as a coke lemon. Rd232 ^talk 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The topic is definitely notable, and the article is well-written and well-sourced. It's true that it's a subtopic of fascism, but it's a common, accepted practice to give lengthy discussions of subtopics their own articles, and I think there's enough material here to justify it being in a separate article. However, I do think it needs to address more of the "other side" that argues the New Deal is distinct from fascism. MrVoluntarist 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment, the article doesn't even tell you why the New Deal is "fascist!" That section, like the rest of the article is simply a collaberation of quotes agreeing with the authors premise (that fascism is the distinct area between socialism and capitalism)! I would be fine with this article if it was what the name suggested, a discription of common fascist economic policies. But this article is not even academic, it is only a pov concept tied togeather with quotes from a select group of people.--sansvoix 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment, there are a lot of quotes but that's just the initial stages of the article --the research. Also, note that there has been text amidst the quotes, but someone has been deleting all of it with the claim that it's "editorializing." RJII 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for cleanup. Gazpacho 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Of course Keep. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- and the cabal who keep marking this for deletion for no better reason than that it offends their own POV should be ashamed of themselves by now. But, of course, won't be. --Christofurio 15:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am offended by your accusation! I discoverd this article via a RFC.--sansvoix 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting me to care where you discovered this article might be a challenge. --Christofurio 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this you trying to tell me that that night ment nothing to you!??--sansvoix 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but massive cleanup. Citing sources != NPOV. The article remains a POV mess, but there is a lot of interest in it now, and I can see the potential for a good article comparing and contrasting the policies of fascist nations. TomTheHand 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is inherently POV. --SpinyNorman 00:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - Article is based on a non-notable Neologism (that also isn't at all coherent) (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). RJII has a big history of creating POV articles to get his political messages across. In fact I consider him to be a paid Agent provocateur (employed by U.S Gov or a right-wing 'think tank'): "BFD. Can't Wikipedia for 24 hours. Who cares! I'm still getting paid. You sure are making productive use of that petty power aren't you? RJII 17:46, 29 December 2005" <From RJII's talkpage. Another reason I suspect this is because RJII is on 8hrs a day every day since about May time (and then only to create articles like this and POVing the Anarchism article). This article was created to push the ridiculous far-right hypothesis that National Socialism and Socialism and the USA during the depression are essentially the same. If this article was about Capitalist economies under Fascist governance I would dive in and contribute. It is not. -max rspct leave a message 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my delete nomination since the AFD nomination has attracted more editors to the article. - max rspct leave a message 12:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm glad you have come around. My vision behind the creation of this this article was to expose the economics in fascist countries, for my own learning and everyone else's. Whatever POV the reality supports or opposes, I couldn't care less. RJII 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Very funny, to say the least. Anyway, "economics of fascism" is not a "neologism." It's not even a term, really. What else are you going to call the article? Call it by any name you wish, as long as it denotes that the article is about the economics in fascist regimes. RJII 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think these two edits show [3] and [4] show how inaccurate and POV RJII can really get (besides his uncivilness and abusive behaviour) - max rspct leave a message 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

CommentLooks like decent edits to me. But, enough about me. This vote is about the article. So, drop it. RJII 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep, there is a lot that can be done with this article beyond just cleaning it up. (Gibby 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

• Keep, but needs a clean-up. Lots of POV in this one, but an interesting subject.  :-) Ekpardo 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep important subject, article seems a bit brief. opposition to existence of article seems to be a vocal minority.207.216.91.171 15:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per RJII abakharev 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is no place for censorship--Nn-user 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. CDC (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.