Talk:Lawrence Dennis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Crotalus horridus censoring the fact that Dennis calls his proposed system "fascism"
"Dennis called his system "fascism," but this was confusing to his readers and, later, injurious to his own career and reputation." [1] Calling someone a "fascist" was not an epithet back then as it was now. A fascist economic system was perceived by many as reputable alternative. RJII 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Everytime I note in the article that he calls his system "fascism" someone comes along and censors that. Why is that? That he called it fascism is a very notable point. RJII 21:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] As the original author . . .
The additional statement thereof, apart from being redundant, has the effect of creating confusion as to wether Dennis was describing the emergence of a system he was in favor of. His enemies insisted that he was, while avoiding the fact that in actual fact he was agitiating against that which those smearing him as a fascist were in fact themselves promoting.
Jacrosse 23:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- He was promoting the same type of economic system that was found in the fascist regimes (but without the militarism) --an economy planned by a merged state business complex (aka fascist political economy). He called his system just what it was --"fascism." RJII 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
I don't know much about the topic, but this article seems very slanted to the right. Any attempt to call him a fascist, which it seems he basically by definition was, is called a "smear campaign," while central and equal weight is given to Thomas DiLorenzo and Justin Raimondo, neither of whom I have heard of, but both seem right wing from their articles, particularly Raimondo. Meanwhile, Dennis is said to be a progressive anti-New Deal leader with Charles Beard, whose article says he was pro New Deal, merely anti-FDR's foreign policy. Finally, it seems to me that more emphasis should be placed on his racial identity, considering that as a leading fascist thinker his hidden half-black parentage would have been a major and conflicting part of his identity. zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've done something about some of the points you mention, particularly the extremely contentious bit about the "smear campaign", but don't know enough about progressivism and the New Deal myself to edit that bit. Any initiative from informed editors on this would certainly be appreciated. -- TinaSparkle 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I;ve removed the part where it claims that the judge in Dennis' trial 'mysteriously' died - he ahd a heart attack. StuartDouglas 12:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The worked Dennis did for Today's Challenge was to show how the New Deal policies were alike to National Socialist economics. Dennis was an elitist, maybe somewhat technocratic, and he seems somewhat out of place with the mass based, populist Coughlins and Smiths, although he did mingle with them at times. --LC 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mddemarest
Objectively, the article on Dennis is badly done: stuff missing (Dennis' trips to Germany, his presence at the 1938 Olympics in the NSDAP party boxes, his letters home to his wife, full of glowing talk of Hilter and the Reich, his deliberate and persistent disruptions of the 1944 sedition trial, his taking-of-money from Viereck and Auhagen, his requests for money directed to various Nazi propaganda organizations, etc.), stuff misleading (I am not aware of any actual relationship between Dennis and Charles Beard, who were of two very different views on fascism as a legitimate political ideology and the war in Europe), stuff that's silly (Justin Raimundo as a citation). The question is whether the original author committed this piece deliberately or inadvertently. If deliberately, I'd say the omissions alone warrant the removal of the piece as an attempt to whitewash the reputation of an indicted seditionist and probable active (as in financially remunerated) Nazi collaborator. If inadvertent, I'd say it should be redone because it's just plain bad.
Lawrence is the most prominent intellectual fascist/fascist intellectual the US has ever produced. He repudiated his positions of the 1930s and early 40s before the end of his life (as did his colleague George Sylvester Viereck) and his work is challenging and thoughtful. Lawrence is a fascist, probably a Nazi collaborator, and an important US intellectual. That's all consistent, in my view.
Marc Demarest 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- So improve it, then.Verklempt 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
