Talk:Producerism

message: Wow. Nice job.--Cberlet 21:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled Thread 

message: Why doesn't this page show up anymore on the Google search? Is there a way to get pages erased from Google, or am I just being paranoid? Mjk2357 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible, but exceedingly unlikely that it was done intentionally. The page doesn't seem to be in the database at all (see page-specific search). Google's algorithm may have simply ignored it in the last update for some reason. // Pathoschild 06:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Google search

message: A number of tags flagging "dubious" section have been added, but where is the discussion? It is not useful to tag and run.--Cberlet 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious tags

message: Northmeister I'll take your word for it that you're not a LaRouche partisan. As you may know, supporters of LaRouche are infamous for causing trouble on Wikipedia, deleting articles that mention LaRouche or refer to his politics (even indirectly) etc., so hopefully you see why I thought you were one of them!
Anyway, to adress some of your questions....
Who coined the term Producerism? I don't know and haven't been able to find out. Like I said I saw it on C-SPAN and read about it in Salon and in the Nation. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Wayne Fazio though: The Producerism.org site is pretty incoherent - it seems like one guy's personal philosophy and I don't think it has much to do with what we're talking about.
As the Producerism article states the meaning of the term is vague - it can refer specifically to the 19th century, to an abstract position opposing "Consumerism," or to something more specifically American.
Who has associated the Reform Party of America with Producerism? Darren Ferry for one. I'm not sure if the current Party is much more than a shell for various groups that seize control of it. In the Perot era I recall the Nation magazine refering to Perot as Producerist.
Who associated the producerist term with America's past Presidential candidates (like 'Cross of Gold' man William J. Bryan)? Various historians - see the page citations. A quick Google search I just conducted revealed a Texas college history syllabus that included Producerism under the section "Guilded Age Ideologies." (http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~dblanke/1302%20Study%20Guide%20Part%20I.htm)
Is there a difference between populism and producerism? Producerism seems to be a populism of the middle class - as opposed to traditional "elities vs. commoners" populism, Producerism mutates that into "elites and the underclass vs. the common people."
Is there a difference between nationalism and producerism? Producerism is undoubtedly nationalistic, at least in its American form, but not all nationalisms are producerist. For example, there are many military-oriented nationalists in America who nevertheless support free trade. A producerist would not.
What elements make Producerism distinct from simple Nationalism or Protectionism or Mercantilism or Nativism? Producerism contains elements of all of these. See above for its distinction from simple Nationalism. Producerism is protectionist - perhaps that is its most defining quality. It is a socially conservative economic nationalism with a "two-front" conception of class struggle. 
Producerism is not necessarily nativist - some producerist tendencies glorify the "hard-working" immigrant and contrast him with the "lazy" (usually black) native-born member of the underclass. If you know any men in my father's generation you've probably heard this sentiment quite frequently!
Producerism could be considered a modern Mercantilism with the addition of strong class resentments that were not present in 18th-century Mercantilism.
Who are some of the Scholars who have commented on Producerism not associated with the Public Eye website which is a advocacy website? Once again, see the citations.
Hope this speaks to some of your concerns. Let me know what you think.
Mjk2357 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try actually reading any of the major books that discuss producerism. Reality extends beyond the Internet. Try using a library card, for example.--Cberlet 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Producerism? Where did the term come from? 

message: The section on Marxism could use some cites, and the rewrite changed their meaning.  Let's rely on published material, not OR. This is a complicated and contentious topic.--Cberlet 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The contentious topic seems to be the one sentence about antisemitism and other racial/cultural theories. I didn't think it's possible to explain that in a short section under a different subtopic. Maybe as an early, fundamental quote Engels, who said "that antisemitism is the socialism of the little man"? Reference to Proletarian internationalism? The english language wikipedia is in a poor state regarding any output by political scientists from the former "real existing socialist" countries. Listing "Marxism" as a totalitarian movement is highly contentious too, it would really have to be "Marxism/Leninism" to be correct. Viande hachée 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on removing Marxism from Totalitarian section. I don't really think that your new material altered any meanings, but it didn't really add too much either, so I'm staying out of this debate. Mjk2357 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is to add material cited to published scholarship. Uncited opinion just makes this a blog.--Cberlet 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but we must distinguish between pure uncited opinion (blog-level stuff - bad!) and analysis and extention of thought based on cited sources. If we can't have the latter, what's the point of Wikipedia at all? With the exception of some scholarly articles that you have to pay for, in this age of searchable books, the sources in question can just be consulted directly. Mjk2357 12:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New material

message: I don't have references, but I've heard 'producerism' being used to express the idea that the nominally demand-driven economy is significantly supply-driven, with company marketing seeking to create consumer 'demand' with (for example) aggressive advertising particularly evident in kids' cartoons being used to create a demand for particular toys, but also with the drive to 'bigger, better, faster'. To a lesser extent, I've heard it linked to the idea that consumers are denied goods or forced to accept goods which only partially address their requirements because one or more large companies have either consolidated what could have been several product lines (aggressive commoditisation), or because a company has a monopoly and refuses to address demand for what are perhaps strategic reasoss (e.g. Sony not producing a keyboard for the PSP, and apparently failing to cooperate with a third party trying to produce one). SleekWeasel 13:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're describing sounds more like a critique of Consumerism or what some call the "corporate command economy." However as the article notes the meaning of "Producerism" is fuzzy and means different things in different countries. I have never heard the term used to describe what you've written, but if you can find a good source feel free to add it to the article as an alternate meaning. Mjk2357 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supply-driven?

message: Some sections have cited sources - please request sources for specific paragraphs. Tagging the entire article is not helpful.--Cberlet 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Many of you seem to feel that this article is fabricated to support some idiotic view. And after reading it a few times, I agree. I for one think we should delete it, but seeing as I am but one humble man, I propose a vote.
1: The article stays and I gladly die fighting to keep it alive!
2: The article should stay, it's existance is justified.
3: The article should be deleted, it has no place here.
4: The article should be deleted and I would gladly start a few bar fights to get rid of it!
Choose one and explain your reasoning....Long live democracy! (Demigod Ron 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article already survived a vote to delete in February 2006.  The proper procedure is to list it for deletion again, and have an actual vote.  It is not appropriate to hold a vote for deletion on the discussion page of an entry. Long live democratic rule-making at Wiki. --Cberlet 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Garbage?

message: :Image:Producerism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Producerism.jpg

message: The statement that Marx treated industrial and finance capital (other than as part of the common underlying construct) monolithically is patently and verifiably false. The contrast of the 19th century use of the term "Proletariat" with the current nebulous usage "middle class" is no less whack. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear: the "proletariat" is defined as that portion of society that lives by wage labor. This would include most of today's "middle class", but not most of what was considered the middle class in the 19th century. That's what the author of the text is apparently completely oblivious to: the term "middle class" originally referred not only to an income level but to a class of largely independent producers who were indeed petty bourgeois, small time capitalists. With the development of capitalism this group is inexorably converted by big capital into proletarians, i.e. wage labourers, their professional standing which would have made them petty bourgeois in the 19th century is largely irrelevant in the current state of affairs. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distortion of Marxism-Leninism 

message: : "The domestic innovators and patriotic industrialists such as Henry Ford, Lee Iacocca and Sam Walton (whose Wal-Mart imports moved over 1.5 million jobs that might otherwise be in America to China between 1989 and 2003, a year after Walton's death.) are the heroes in this view of the business world, while the cost-cutting CEOs and unaccountable financiers are the villains."
Is it because Wal-Mart outsources jobs that Walton is seen as a hero? Or is it despite that? If despite, then why is he seen as a hero? Presumably Walton presided over the quoted outsourcing of jobs until his death in 1992. Something like this would be better:
: Domestic innovators and patriotic industrialists such as Henry Ford, Lee Iacocca and Sam Walton are heroes in this view, while cost-cutting CEOs and unaccountable financiers are villains. Ironically, Walton's company Wal-Mart outsourced 1.5 million jobs between 1989 and 2003, but producerists consider him a hero because (they do not know about the outsourcing / the outsourcing occurred after his death / his enterpreneurship trumps the jobs in important/...).
-Pgan002 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: The words "producerism" and "producerist" should not be capitalized unless they are at the start of a sentence or they refer to a political party. This is like the words "capitalism", "communism", "fascism", "consumerism", etc. "Marxism" and "Leninism" are different in that they are based on proper names, and so are capitalized in English. I have corrected the capitalization in the article. -Pgan002 (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "producerism" 

message: I reverted this edit, which had the quaint edit summary "Revert massive destruction." I prefer the version that has been there lately, for the following reasons: it doesn't contain large amounts of Original Research, and does not place undue weight on fringe viewpoints. The fringe viewpoints I refer to are the ones that conflate Producerism with various forms of radical populism, or construct guilt-by-association arguments (that would be Chip Berlet, the great fulfiller of Godwin's law.) The version I restored provides some historical background from actual scholarly works, which is missing altogether from the "revert massive destruction" version. The version I prefer is much shorter, which may seem like a liability, but I prefer a short, accurate article to one that is larded with fringe viewpoints. 99.146.12.110 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Massive Destruction don't seem to feel much like discussin', he's just revertin'. So to try to resolve this, I'll initiate an RfC and get some other viewpoints. 99.126.47.241 (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Berlet et al coined the term is debatable. Both the Robert Ascher book and the Roseanne Currarino book that are presently cited in the article pre-date the Berlet and Lyons book that is cited. But my objection is to Berlet's standard tactic of saying in effect, "some people holding producerist views were also white supremacists, anti-immigrant, hated welfare moms, etc., so therefore all persons holding producerist views should be considered 'right-wing populists'." You can see this demonstrated in his comments on this very talk page. But mind you, I'm not proposing that his views be excluded here. I'm just saying that it would be mistake to have them completely dominate the article, as in some earlier versions. 99.126.44.205 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think he says that.  His book is however about rw populism, one element of which is producerism.  But are there any producerists today outside rw populism?  TFD (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Version B should be preferred since it contains far less unfalsifiable and poorly-sourced citations yet it provides links to further materials in the unlikely event that anyone actually searches the Internet for such information. Wikipedia is often a jumping-off point for people doing research so the reduced set of information, in my opinion, should be used. Damotclese (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree with User Damotclese. There is room for improvements. Fox1942 (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Massive destruction" 

message: I removed the following from the EL section because they do not comply with standard usage for that section. Some of these are probably good sources for article content so I've preserved them verbatim here.
===Supporting===
*Producerism.org Explicitly Producerist website which divides society into Producers and the "Looters" (liberal elite) and "Moochers" (underclass) who exploit them.
*Why Democrats Must Be Populists. And what populist-phobes don't understand about America. American Prospect article with a positive view of producerism.
===Opposing===
*The Producerist Narrative in Repressive Right Wing Populism
*Hard Right Styles, Frames & Narratives Includes a short section on Producerism under "Populism."
*The Party of Privilege: The NDP Consensus and the Attack on the Poor A critique accusing a Canadian political party of being producerist.
===Scholarly===
*Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore. Book proposing a Jacksonian and evangelical origin for producerism
*Every Man a Speculator: A History of Wall Street in American Life. Book that includes section on Producerist hostility towards financial capital.
Jojalozzo 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were correct to remove these.  I would only link to an external article if it were extremely notable to the subject.  Of course some of these articles may be reliable sources, in which case they could be externally linked through the references section.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: *Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore. Book proposing a Jacksonian and evangelical origin for producerism
*Every Man a Speculator: A History of Wall Street in American Life. Book that includes section on Producerist hostility towards financial capital.
Jojalozzo 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were correct to remove these.  I would only link to an external article if it were extremely notable to the subject.  Of course some of these articles may be reliable sources, in which case they could be externally linked through the references section.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly

message: It's sad there is more content written over arguing about what content needs to be written than the actual article. By a trillion-fold. I tried my best to merge "version A" with "version B" listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Producerism&oldid=587182668  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyWaffle (talk • contribs) 12:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos 

message: "Namely it upholds the traditional values of the middle class as the only true national values."  Do the adherents of this philosophy not think that the working class produce anything?  If so, the article needs to better explain how "Producerists" define "production of wealth".  If not, the statement about values needs to be better worded, or at least define what is meant by "middle class".  (Actually, "production of wealth" and "middle class" need to be better defined here anyway;;). 62.172.108.24 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the references to that section are incomplete. It seems that in some definitions no distinction is made between groups in the class below middle class. http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/populism.html Jonpatterns (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both the post above have made some important points. Plus, the lead sentence not only does not represent the text below, but most of the recent social science on producerism  --  especially that by Cas Mudde.  Anyone interested in trying to improve this page? Chip.berlet (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do the working class fit into this ideology?