Talk:Economics of fascism/Archive 1

message: The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII. Your definition of economic fascism is supported strictly by libertarian sources, and it is so broad that any kind of mixed economy - anything short of laissez-faire or full central planning - would fall under it. You are essentially saying that a mixed economy is a form of economic fascism, when the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that it is in fact the other way around: economic fascism is a particular kind of mixed economy.
In addition, there are no self-described "economic fascists" and fascism itself never placed too much emphasis on economic policy. I see no reason why this article needs to exist. Information on the economic aspects of fascism can and should be included in the main article. At the very most, this article should be a redirect to corporatism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the article say that a mixed economy would be economic fascism? The definition clearly says economic fascism is an "economic system," and notice it says "heavily regulated." And it doesn't matter if the definition is only supported by libertarian sources. Unless you can find definitions from non-libertarian sources then you are unjustified in your complaint. It could be that only economic libertarians use the term. And about redirecting to corporatism ...corporatism is just one aspect of economic fascism. There definitely needs to be an article dedicated to the economics of fascism. RJII 05:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition may say that economic fascism is an "economic system", but it does not explain what separates "economic fascism" from all other economic systems that involve a combination of private ownership and government regulation. In fact, the definition implies that any and all systems involving such a combination are somewhat fascist - an extraordinary claim which is absurd at worst and held by a fringe minority at best. Under such a definition, Louis XIV and Julius Caesar were fascists, along with pretty much all other national leaders in the 4800 years of history before the idea of exclusively private (laissez-faire) or exclusively public economies was invented. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It implies no such thing. The essence of economic fascism is heavy government control over privately-owned means of production. This differs from other economic systems, such as capitalism, where the means of production are both privately owned and privately operated. And, it differs from socialism where the means of production are state-owned. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How heavy is "heavy government control", and what kind of control are we talking about? There are still thousands of pre-modern rulers who imposed heavy control over their economies. Should we count them all as fascists? Was Ancient Egypt fascist? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When does a mound become a hill? I don't know. At some point control becomes "heavy." At what point is it ok to call a market a free market; at what level of regulation does it no longer make sense to call it a free market?  These kinds of questions can only be left to personal judgement. At some point government control is so heavy-handed that it's economic fascism. RJII 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The consensus opinion among non-libertarians is that there is no such thing as economic fascism, because fascist economic policies were by no means unique enough to constitute a separate economic system in their own right. If only economic libertarians use the term, then the article should mention the fact that the existence of "economic fascism" is a libertarian belief. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned that already. I said that it's mostly economic libertarians that use the term. You're treating laissez-faire advocacy as if it's a fringe view, but economic libertarianism is mainstream in intellgentsia today. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fringe view. Libertarians get about 1% of the vote in the US. Firebug 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said in "intelligentsia." And, were talking about economic libertarianism here. Those who favor de-regulation and privatization are economic libertarians. That view is definitely not confined to the US Libertarian Party. RJII 02:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I'm treating the existence of a separate fascist economic system as a fringe view, which it is. And support for privatization and deregulation may be mainstream, but actual libertarianism (opposition to any and all government intervention in the economy) is certainly not. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most economic libertarians aren't absolutists in that way. Very few are against all intervention. RJII 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In resarching on Google, I'm finding people on the left using the term as well. RJII 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I find "economic libertarianism is mainstream in intellgentsia today" an extraodinary claim, and suggest that it might be key to the dispute.  Jkelly 02:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more laissez-faire economists today than Keyenesians. That may have not been the case in the 1960's and 70's but this is 2005. You've even got laissez-faire advocate Alan Greenspan running the Federal Reserve in the US (here he is praising free markets in a recent speech ). Look at some of the Nobel prizes for economics in the just the last 10 years. Interventionism is out of favor. RJII 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "There are more laissez-faire economists today than Keyenesians": Prove it. I'd like to see a cite for this. And Alan Greenspan is not a laissez-faire advocate - if he was, he never would have accepted the job running the Fed in the first place, since the very existence of the Fed is against laissez-faire theology. Firebug 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. You don't have to be an anarcho-capitalist to properly be called an advocate of laissez-faire. If you at least favor a minimization of economic interventionism you're an economic libertarian, in common understanding. RJII 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. Of course it is an absolutist term. Laissez faire is used to distinguish between those who want a mixed economy (of whatever degree) and those who want absolute untrammelled capitalism. That is how the term has always been used. Neither Greenspan nor Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush were economic libertarians or advocates of laissez-faire. That is traditionally reserved for fringe figures like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul. Firebug 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam Smith is commonly recognized as the father of laissez-faire economics (capitalism) and he certainly did not advocate a total lack of government intervention. To be absolutely laissez-faire you have to be an anarchist. By the way, Milton Friedman is certainly not "fringe." I don't know how old you are, but advocacy of free markets is mainstream today (I'm not sure about among common folk, but certainly in academic circles). RJII 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fringe view" 

message: The result of the vote was the article was to keep. 172 has taken it upon himself to go against that conclusion and redirect the article without consensus. This is highly unethical. He's also modifying/vandalizing the vote for deletion page page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2 after the close. A clear violation of policy.  Just noting this for the record. Don't ever let this guy become an adminstrator. Or if he is one, revoke his badge. RJII 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. That explains a lot. RJII 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unethical actions by [[User:172|172]]

message: ...the article must now be made NPOV.  "Economic fascism" must be described as what it is:  a term used by libertarians to describe various economic systems.  That's all this article is about.  Starting the article "Economic fascism is..." must continue "...a term used by some libertarians to describe...".  As it stands it is NPOV.
I implore the editors in favour of keeping this page to edit it now in compliance with WP:NPOV.  Remember - you are describing the theory used to explain real world events.  So to keep it NPOV you must always describe it as such.
In the mean time, I am going to add a NPOV header here - until the article describes the theory passively.  I voted to keep this article on the basis that it could be NPOV.  Now it must become NPOV or keep the NPOV-Header forever!  jucifer 22:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the hangup over the "term." I don't think that's the right way to look at this article. It could have been called anything "Fascist economic systems," "Fascist economies," etc. I created this article under the name "economic fascism" just because it's a more common term than "fascist economic system." RJII 22:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think "libertarians" are defining economic fascism in any specialized way. DiLorenzo goes through the economic aspects that are found in the Italian and German fascist systems in showing what a fascist economic system is. Who wouldn't agree those are aspects of those economies?  What libertarians like DiLorenzo, however, are doing is going further to assert that there are some aspects of that system in the New Deal and other such things. It wouldn't make sense to intertwine the what constitutes economic fascism with any given libertarian argument about the New Deal, for example. RJII 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, it is a minority POV.  Wikipedia's way of dealing with this kind of thing is to describe it as a theory that describes reality, rather than as stuff that happened.  The protagonists for the theory are the ones that say THAT.  We can't have an article describing a theory as fact.  This is not a negotiable point.  jucifer 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why make the article POV at all? Describing the economic system in fascist countries is not really a POV issue. A POV issue would be arguing that economic fascism exists, in say, the U.S. I don't understand the point of tying in a definition and description of economic fascism with such an argument. That seems really POV to me. The only thing I can understand that may be arguable is whether, in fact, the economic system in fascist nations was unique to those nations. That is, the question of whether economic fascism is a real thing or whether the system in fascist nations was simply capitalism or socialism. See the article The ‘Political Economy of Fascism’: Myth or Reality: or Myth and Reality? for this issue. RJII 02:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm glad this was kept, but.... 

message: An archived version of the discussion during the period that this article was in a "Twoversions" form can be found at Talk:Economic fascism/twoversions.  I encourage the editors involved in that discussion to read Talk:Economic fascism/twoversions#Situation_now before further editing.  Thanks.  Jkelly 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TwoVersions discussion 

message: Look, I don't like the article any more than you do.  The Totally-disputed tag is sufficient, you can't go around making up great big ugly boxes like that without a strong consensus.
I would like to let this article develop for maybe 2 weeks or so - see if it improves.  If it does not, I will personally nominate it for deletion.  I suggest that you leave it for a few weeks and see what happens.  
Adding stuff like that to an article simply makes it less likely to be improved, which is not what anyone wants.  You cannot on the one hand argue that an article should be deleted because it is bad, while with your other hand you are making it worse. 
I am going to remove your box one more time, and I hope you will have the courtesy not to put it back.  jucifer 14:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Firebug take a step back 

message: I hoped you would be reasonable.  You realise that you have now reverted 3 times.  jucifer 16:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, by my count, there were only 2 reverts, if you discount the reversion of the removal of the NPOV tag as proper reversion of vandalism.  (Although I wouldn't call him/her "reasonable".) Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firebug:  3RR 

message: I'd like to see if there's some consensus for changing the name of the article.  If so, I'd like to get ideas on what the article should be renamed to.  It seems that there are some people who agree that the article would be better off named something without such a POV taint.  I would be content with a relatively minor change, like "economics of Fascism" or "economics under Fascism."  I know that RJII insists that the name must not be changed.  Could everyone else with an interest in this debate sound off? TomTheHand 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no sense to change the name of the article to a less notable and awkward term or phrase. That would be like changing the title of the capitalism article to economics under liberal democracies. Economic fascism is the term most used to label the overall fascist economic system found in fascist regimes. There is no "POV" taint --that's all in your head because the terms "fascist" and "fascism" are often thrown around as epithets. But, economic fascism is not used as an epithet in this article, nor by the sources. The next most often used term appears to be Fascist economy but it trails far behind economic fascism. (I do commend you for trying to get a consensus though, unlike firebug). RJII 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the article? 

message: === neologism  ===
This article is forever going to be vague.  I'm no professional on this subject, but I do know that Italy's economy ran and operated far far differently than Germany's.  Germany was centred around corporatism, Italy had its syndicalism, and Japan (if you call it fascist) had the wall-mart sysyem.  But thats just my secondary school memory speaking, I'm sure it goes deeper than that.--sansvoix 08:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the request for comment that brought me here!  It should be renamed somthing like Correlations in Fascist Economies, and expanded as such.--sansvoix 08:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right ..they were not identical, but the "correlations in fascist economies" is what constitutes economic fascism. The main correlation appears to be that neither system was capitalist nor socialist, but heavy government control over privately owned means of production --achieved by various schemes. RJII 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was sort of what I was getting at.  Calling this article "economic fascism" tells you that those militaristic nationalistic wackos in the 30's had a particular unique set of fascist economic policies you can read about.  Of course it is far more complex, they all did different things, and most (all) of the economic policies were not distinctly "fascist."  Or are not called that today. When the U.S expanded corporate rights, it wasn't a move to "economic fascism."  There is no such thing as economic fascism, per se.--sansvoix 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is such a thing. The economic system in both fascist Italy and Germany was not capitalism and was not socialism. It was a "third way." RJII 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was not the same thing, and your title, and your article for that matter, suggest that they are. There simply isn't any such thing as "fascist economy". James James 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Also agree with page move from economic fascism to economics of fascism, the former being a ridiculous and extremely ideological term (eg one exponent, Thomas DiLorenzo, reckons "A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day." ). Rd232 talk 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. DiLorenzo is just one of many person that uses the term "economic fascism" to label the economic system. "Economics of fascism" make no sense is not as popular as "economic fascism." and fascism is not defined by being an economic system so it doesn't make much sense to call it that. The Mises Institute, however, did recently have a symposium called "The Economics of Fascism." RJII 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you are discussing "the economics of fascism" (or of the fascist polities, anyway), not the term "economic fascism" as it has been used. James James 23:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a source where it's not being used to describe the economic system that was found in fascist Italy and Germany? RJII 00:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article does, for one. You do not actually give contentions made in sources, man, you just state as though it were a fact that "economic fascism" is what Germany and Italy practised. Constantly putting up the straw man that your "sources" describe Germany and Italy as practising "economic fascism" doesn't answer the argument that it has little currency as a concept outside some libertarian polemicists and that most economists/historians of economics/political historians neither use the term nor would agree that there is a coherent economic system that all the fascist nations employed. James James 03:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Economic fascism" sounds like a type of fascism, not a property of fascism. And since fascism involves the linkage of the political and economic for the purposes of the nation-state, the former makes no sense. There is no fascism that is purely political! Rd232 talk 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be no fascism that is purely political, but that doesn't mean that the economic system in fascist regimes can't be viewed as a disitinct economic system that wasn't found in other States. RJII 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, (a) like JamesJames, I'm not sure there is a distinct and definable economic system identifiable with fascism; (b) if there is, there's no reason to give it the misleading name of "economic fascism". Rd232 talk 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find some dissenting opinions --that is, some arguing that there's no such thing as economic fascism --that would be great. There is a new article called "The ‘Political Economy of Fascism’: Myth or Reality: or Myth and Reality? that's examining that question, but I think it's still a work in progress. RJII 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem remains that this article says that "economic fascism" is X, Y and Z. You don't say "A, B and C says that economic fascism is X, Y and Z". You make out it's an actual thing. Which it isn't. I'm going to move it back to economy of fascism, which is what you discuss, unless you rewrite the intro to be clear that you are using a term that is pretty much restricted to a certain group of polemicists. James James 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There's not a consensus either way. So you're redirecting without a consensus. Anyway, why would "economics of fascism" be NPOV if "economic fascism" is not? That makes no sense to me. RJII 03:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's clearly a consensus, RJII. Please stop reverting to your version. You've inadvertently created a fork rather than moved the page. "Economic fascism" would be something quite different from "economics of fascism". The latter would be the economics employed by fascism, while the former would be the philosophy of fascism applied to economics, I guess. That it's so hard to work out what it could even mean should give you a hint as to its coherence as a concept. What you are trying to do in this article is conflate the economics of the fascist nations (which does not make a coherent economics, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseam) with some notion of "economic fascism", which is interpreted as "heavy government intervention". But, as has also been pointed out to you, that notion does not have much currency outside a few polemicists with an agenda, and to try to pass it off as something that has a broader context in economics is just wrong. Look, leave the article where it is. It has the (mostly original) content you put in it and your title redirects to it. It simply more accurately characterises what you've written about and your contention that anyone who thinks the government should regulate business is a fascist is more or less untouched. James James 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clearly not a consensus, as was evidenced in the vote:  Maybe you didn't know that. Now that you do know that, if you redirect the article you will know that you are doing it without a consensus. RJII 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your attempted explanation of why "economics of fascism" is NPOV but "economic fascism" is POV is completely vacuous. RJII 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not true. Others have tried to redirect the article without a consensus and were reverted by others besides me. It's not just me that is trying to protect the Wikipedia policy about doing such drastic things without a consensus. RJII 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow. You really should check your glasses then. RJII 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, literally NOBODY agrees with you.  Please look up and down the page and realize that the closest thing to your position that you'll find is that the article requires extensive cleanup.  Some people want deletion, some want the article rewritten to actually reflect the usage of the phrase "economic fascism" by libertarians, others want a rename to a more appropriate title, but there is a clear consensus that the article is not satisfactory as-is. TomTheHand 04:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. You just have the impression because I'm the only one taking the time responding to the ridiculous complaints from the POV-inclined people here and indulging in them. You'll see in the AfD that was just inititiated that people do want the article. I personally don't think the article is great, but it's good start. It needs to exist and will continue to have extensive improvement over time. The economic practices of fascism is an extremely notable topic and there's nothing you can do to stop the article. Change the name, or whatever, there will always be an article on fascist economics and there's nothing you can do to stop it. The seed has been planted. RJII 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Tom, would you consider listing this article for deletion?  I would, but I don't know how.  I think most people here would vote for deletion.  The more I consider it, I'm not sure there is any hope that this article can be anything but inherently POV.  It seems to exist only to draw specious links between right-wing statist ideologies like fascism and Naziism and FDR's leftist "New Deal".  --SpinyNorman 20:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: This article is forever going to be vague.  I'm no professional on this subject, but I do know that Italy's economy ran and operated far far differently than Germany's.  Germany was centred around corporatism, Italy had its syndicalism, and Japan (if you call it fascist) had the wall-mart sysyem.  But thats just my secondary school memory speaking, I'm sure it goes deeper than that.--sansvoix 08:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the request for comment that brought me here!  It should be renamed somthing like Correlations in Fascist Economies, and expanded as such.--sansvoix 08:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right ..they were not identical, but the "correlations in fascist economies" is what constitutes economic fascism. The main correlation appears to be that neither system was capitalist nor socialist, but heavy government control over privately owned means of production --achieved by various schemes. RJII 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was sort of what I was getting at.  Calling this article "economic fascism" tells you that those militaristic nationalistic wackos in the 30's had a particular unique set of fascist economic policies you can read about.  Of course it is far more complex, they all did different things, and most (all) of the economic policies were not distinctly "fascist."  Or are not called that today. When the U.S expanded corporate rights, it wasn't a move to "economic fascism."  There is no such thing as economic fascism, per se.--sansvoix 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is such a thing. The economic system in both fascist Italy and Germany was not capitalism and was not socialism. It was a "third way." RJII 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was not the same thing, and your title, and your article for that matter, suggest that they are. There simply isn't any such thing as "fascist economy". James James 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  neologism  

message: RfC: The article ought to define which group of scholars use this term and should discuss competing theories.  The short section about the United States New Deal is very slanted.  It cites two authorities who claim the New Deal was an attempt to impose fascism and offers no evidence for any competing explanation.  How about the American reform tradition that traced its roots to Edward Bellamy?  How about the argument that moderate measures of the New Deal prevented a Communist movement from taking root?  If the New Deal constitutes economic fascism, then virtually every country in present Western Europe is fascist. Durova 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also agree with page move from economic fascism to economics of fascism, the former being a ridiculous and extremely ideological term (eg one exponent, Thomas DiLorenzo, reckons "A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day." ). Rd232 talk 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. DiLorenzo is just one of many person that uses the term "economic fascism" to label the economic system. "Economics of fascism" make no sense is not as popular as "economic fascism." and fascism is not defined by being an economic system so it doesn't make much sense to call it that. The Mises Institute, however, did recently have a symposium called "The Economics of Fascism." RJII 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you are discussing "the economics of fascism" (or of the fascist polities, anyway), not the term "economic fascism" as it has been used. James James 23:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a source where it's not being used to describe the economic system that was found in fascist Italy and Germany? RJII 00:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article does, for one. You do not actually give contentions made in sources, man, you just state as though it were a fact that "economic fascism" is what Germany and Italy practised. Constantly putting up the straw man that your "sources" describe Germany and Italy as practising "economic fascism" doesn't answer the argument that it has little currency as a concept outside some libertarian polemicists and that most economists/historians of economics/political historians neither use the term nor would agree that there is a coherent economic system that all the fascist nations employed. James James 03:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Economic fascism" sounds like a type of fascism, not a property of fascism. And since fascism involves the linkage of the political and economic for the purposes of the nation-state, the former makes no sense. There is no fascism that is purely political! Rd232 talk 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be no fascism that is purely political, but that doesn't mean that the economic system in fascist regimes can't be viewed as a disitinct economic system that wasn't found in other States. RJII 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, (a) like JamesJames, I'm not sure there is a distinct and definable economic system identifiable with fascism; (b) if there is, there's no reason to give it the misleading name of "economic fascism". Rd232 talk 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find some dissenting opinions --that is, some arguing that there's no such thing as economic fascism --that would be great. There is a new article called "The ‘Political Economy of Fascism’: Myth or Reality: or Myth and Reality? that's examining that question, but I think it's still a work in progress. RJII 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem remains that this article says that "economic fascism" is X, Y and Z. You don't say "A, B and C says that economic fascism is X, Y and Z". You make out it's an actual thing. Which it isn't. I'm going to move it back to economy of fascism, which is what you discuss, unless you rewrite the intro to be clear that you are using a term that is pretty much restricted to a certain group of polemicists. James James 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There's not a consensus either way. So you're redirecting without a consensus. Anyway, why would "economics of fascism" be NPOV if "economic fascism" is not? That makes no sense to me. RJII 03:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's clearly a consensus, RJII. Please stop reverting to your version. You've inadvertently created a fork rather than moved the page. "Economic fascism" would be something quite different from "economics of fascism". The latter would be the economics employed by fascism, while the former would be the philosophy of fascism applied to economics, I guess. That it's so hard to work out what it could even mean should give you a hint as to its coherence as a concept. What you are trying to do in this article is conflate the economics of the fascist nations (which does not make a coherent economics, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseam) with some notion of "economic fascism", which is interpreted as "heavy government intervention". But, as has also been pointed out to you, that notion does not have much currency outside a few polemicists with an agenda, and to try to pass it off as something that has a broader context in economics is just wrong. Look, leave the article where it is. It has the (mostly original) content you put in it and your title redirects to it. It simply more accurately characterises what you've written about and your contention that anyone who thinks the government should regulate business is a fascist is more or less untouched. James James 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clearly not a consensus, as was evidenced in the vote:  Maybe you didn't know that. Now that you do know that, if you redirect the article you will know that you are doing it without a consensus. RJII 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your attempted explanation of why "economics of fascism" is NPOV but "economic fascism" is POV is completely vacuous. RJII 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not true. Others have tried to redirect the article without a consensus and were reverted by others besides me. It's not just me that is trying to protect the Wikipedia policy about doing such drastic things without a consensus. RJII 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow. You really should check your glasses then. RJII 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, literally NOBODY agrees with you.  Please look up and down the page and realize that the closest thing to your position that you'll find is that the article requires extensive cleanup.  Some people want deletion, some want the article rewritten to actually reflect the usage of the phrase "economic fascism" by libertarians, others want a rename to a more appropriate title, but there is a clear consensus that the article is not satisfactory as-is. TomTheHand 04:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. You just have the impression because I'm the only one taking the time responding to the ridiculous complaints from the POV-inclined people here and indulging in them. You'll see in the AfD that was just inititiated that people do want the article. I personally don't think the article is great, but it's good start. It needs to exist and will continue to have extensive improvement over time. The economic practices of fascism is an extremely notable topic and there's nothing you can do to stop the article. Change the name, or whatever, there will always be an article on fascist economics and there's nothing you can do to stop it. The seed has been planted. RJII 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Tom, would you consider listing this article for deletion?  I would, but I don't know how.  I think most people here would vote for deletion.  The more I consider it, I'm not sure there is any hope that this article can be anything but inherently POV.  It seems to exist only to draw specious links between right-wing statist ideologies like fascism and Naziism and FDR's leftist "New Deal".  --SpinyNorman 20:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII.
The consensus opinion among non-libertarians is that there is no such thing as economic fascism
No, I'm treating the existence of a separate fascist economic system as a fringe view, which it is.
--Mihnea Tudoreanu
:Any source for your claim that some claim there's no such thing as economic fascism? I'd love to add that to the article if you could come up with a source. RJII 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't make sense because the whole point is that there is a fascist political economy. "Economics of fascism," in addition to being a seldomly-used term, would not be a systemic label. If you don't agree that there is such a system, fine. Find some who disagree so we can add sourced disagreement to the article. RJII 06:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not true. "Jucifer" above was putting the article back in place when someone else was trying to redirect it. You should really read the Talk page and edit history before you throw around a claim like that. You're being really disruptive. RJII 05:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've quoted Jucifer's view. In his/her own words. James James 05:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the adminstrator who tallied the vote warned a couple other people who tried to redirect the article ..told them it was vandalism. RJII 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be very hung up on a vote that showed no consensus. There was practically no support in the discussion for the page as it stands, and there is none at all here on the discussion page. You cannot claim that because there was no consensus on getting rid of your article that no one can ever change the title or any of the content! You've now reverted eight or nine times. You're clearly in breach of the 3RR.James James 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the policy. If there is no consensus to redirect the article, it doesn't get redirected.  The 3RR doesn't apply to redirect vandalism like this. RJII 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking you to stop calling me a vandal. I'm editing in good faith here. The deletion process decides whether to delete or keep an article. No one is deleting the article, merely changing the title. Perhaps you can find the element of deletion policy that says that an article's title may never be changed? James James 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll quote the adminstrator who admonished someone else who tried to redirect the article: "172, also if you would like the article to be redirected attempt to get a consensus on the talk page to do so. I like all people support being bold in certain situations but doing so without a consensus is against policy and is going to just lead to an edit war which should be avoided if at all possible. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected Economic fascism back to Economics of fascism, which was the pre-3RR situation, and I'll leave it protected for a day or so until the situation is calmer. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad move. There was not a consensus to redirect the article.  Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy. RJII 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What consensus? There was not a consensus to move the article.  RJII 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only person who doesn't think the article needs radical surgery, RJII, and there's clear consensus that the title doesn't fit the content. Let's try to work together to give it that surgery and work for something we can all live with, rather than butt heads over whether you get to give it your pet name or not. James James 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: The economics of fascism, called by some theorists
:Names please.
economic fascism (aka fascist economy), is the set of economic practices and characteristics common to fascist regimes in the 1920s and 1930s
:Please provide a list of common characteristics here on the talk page. Please do so from sources, not just off the top of your head. We want to construct an article about what people say about the fascist economies, not about your own theory of them.
with the most often cited characteristic
: Sources please.
being the presence of private or quasi-private ownership
:What does "quasi-private" mean in this instance?
of the means of production that was heavily coordinated by government.
:What does "heavily coordinated" mean? Who says that fascist nations heavily coordinated the means of production?
In Italy and Germany, the State instituted a planned economy that was held to be in the best interest of the nation rather than allowing an economy to self-organize without centralized coordination.
:Source please.
The system included government-mandated business and government partnerships (see corporatism) and mercantilist practices. 
:Seems okay. 
Economic fascism has also been called fascist political economy, fascist economy, political economy of fascism, planned capitalism, and autarchic capitalism.
:Please supply sources that say that any of these things are the same thing as "economic fascism".
When we say which theorists have said the things you're saying here, can we expand on their affiliations and whether anyone has disagreed with them in their analysis?James James 07:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is well sourced. If you want more sources, you're going to have to wait until the article is moved back to where it belongs (unless someone else wants to assist you with that). Obviously you havent read the article or the sources or you wouldnt be asking these questions. Acqaint yourself with things before asking questions. And, feel free to edit this article, but be forewarned that your edits will be lost when economic fascism is restored. RJII 07:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not well sourced. I've indicated the elements in the intro that are not sourced and need your input. I'm very well acquainted with the economics of the fascist nations, so I'll be fascinated to see your sources and read your discussion of them. As it stands though, there's no sourcing at all for the assertions of the introduction. If you won't source it, per policy I will remove it and replace it with something more in keeping with NPOV. And you won't get it restored to economic fascism, because POV forking is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please don't try to edit the fork any more. It's a waste of your work. If you feel you can build a consensus for a move to economic fascism, please do so, but work on this article until you are able to build the support. It's just a name change. The articles are the same, except where you reverted before you c&p'd the content!James James 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will continue to move the article back to economic fascism as you have moved it without a consensus.  As for the intro, it's just a summary of the sourced information in the article. As soon as I am able to move the article back without violating the 3RR rule, I will do so. You are being very disruptive to Wikipedia ethics. I will not be editing this article any further, so have at it. All your edits will be lost when economic fascism is restored. RJII 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Congratulations James, you've just violated the 3RR rule. I'm going to report it. RJII 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to work on this article "together." I am going to work on the economic fascism article, not this one as this one exists illegitimately. After your unethical behavior I have no desire to "work together" with you on anything. You should try to "work together" will people by obtaining a consensus before moving an article. Get with the program. I only collaborate with civil people. RJII 08:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed. Intro first. 

message: I'm glad that the article has been renamed.  However, there are still issues with the article's contents and I don't really know what to do about them.  I think it would be a great idea if the article now becomes a compare/contrast of different fascist economies.  However, I lack the full depth of knowledge on the subject necessary.
Also, I wonder about the article's scope: what do we call fascism?  We should certainly stretch beyond defining it as just Mussoulini's system.  Hitler's National Socialism should be included as well.  How about Japan, or other modern authoritarian governments?  Where is the line drawn?  As the scope gets expanded, the use of the word "fascism" may be POV.  The Nazis didn't call themselves fascist, for example, but nobody would feel too bad about lumping them together.  On the other hand, Pinochet's economics might well be looked at, but calling him fascist is probably closer to POV.  It may be necessary to rename the article again at some point. TomTheHand 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII has now renamed the article from Economics of fascism to Fascist economy; I'm not sure why he thinks that an improvement. I don't mind either way, but I wish he'd address the questions in the previous section, instead of just referring us to sources. Rd232 talk 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please not have a move war? Suggestion: how about having economic fascism be a short article very specifically devoted to the arguments used by those theorists who use the term (including the idea of the US being "economic fascist"), and keep economics of fascism or fascist economy for more general discussion of the relationship between economics and fascism. In this structure, "economic fascism" wouldn't claim to be synonymous with "the economics of fascism", it would be clearly described as a term used by some people to mean more specific things, or a specific approach to the topic. Yes? No? Comments? Rd232 talk 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell are you guys hung up on the term "economic fascism"?  I just don't get it. No matter what you call it, it's all the same thing --the economic system of the fascists. I think it would be a bad idea to make seperate articles. The term itself has nothing to do with arguments. The term is used by capitalists, socialists, and others. The same arguments from some that economic fascism was tried in the US under Roosevelt would be in both articles (i would make sure of that). RJII 20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I think the distinction is important is that "economic fascism" sounds like a type of fascism limited to the economic arena; like a political system under which the economy is strongly controlled by government but the political arena is open and democratic and respecting of human rights. This sounds weird and has little if anything to do (necessarily) with how the economy is run under fascism. Rd232 talk 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the whole idea. The political economy of fascism is an abstraction --the economic system isolated from non-economic policies present in the political system that it may be contained in. Capitalism is the same way --you can have capitalism in a country that does not respect human rights, as long as you have private ownership of the means of production and a free market economy. Now, some may dispute that the economic system in fascist regimes was truly distinct from other known economic systems (e.g. capitalism or socialism) --and that would be good to add to the article with sources. RJII 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with your points 100%, James James. ...Bullying tactics kept me away from this debate, I can't stand it!  Good for you James, for keeping it up this long.--sansvoix 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction for the article now 

message: Now the article is under a name that makes sense at least, can we please move on with it?
Could anyone who wants to make major changes -- more than fixing typos in other words -- please suggest them on talk first? Let's thrash out an article that all are happy with.
I would like to suggest that if what we are presenting is a comparative analysis of economics in fascist polities, we stick to writing about that. If, however, we are having a history of theory of government control, in other words, a discussion about how economists have labelled different economies or different policies "fascist", let's write that. But let's not do both in the hope that the reader will join the dots.
Can interested editors give their thoughts on the way forward for the article? Let's see exactly what we think it should and shouldn't cover. James James 05:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Direction of the article reprise

message: RJII has asked me to unprotect the Economic fascism redirect to this page, which I protected to stop the revert war. I assume that means he intends to move it again. Could someone say what the status is of the consensus, and whether anyone other than RJII thinks the article should be called Economic fascism? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear from the discussion on the talkpage that there was a strong consensus that among the several problems of this article was its title. Not a single other editor agreed with RJII. For a precis of the stated views, please see the section headed "13 Consensus" above. James James 06:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to move an article you should take the proper procedure to make sure there's a consensus. A few weeks ago there was a vote on the article that included several "keeps." Anyway, there certainly wasn't a consensus to move it to "economics of fascism." RJII 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear from this exchange that the reverting will continue if I unlock the redirect, so I'm keeping it protected for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic fascism

message: james, why are you deleting sourced information? why won't you take time  to read the article instead of just deleting things? RJII 06:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh. Mussolini was in charge when fascism was going on,  ..likewise for Hitler. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my actual objection, rather than rudely attacking a straw man. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no objective. Just a unfounded deletion. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If economic fascism is a meaningless term then why are scholars using it?  It may be meaningless to you, but not to those of us who employ the term. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please source the section to scholars saying that Hitler practised it in Germany and Mussolini practised it in Italy. The opinions of "those of you" who use the term are not useful to Wikipedia unless you have had them published in a reputable source. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absolutely insane. The article is ABOUT the economic systems under Mussolini and Hitler. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is indeed sourced. Look a few sentences down. Ebeling says that the New Deal was economic fascism. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the sentence should say "Ebeling says that the New Deal..." etc. But it doesn't. It says "some" say it. You need to say who Ebeling is. In fact, you need to note who all the people you source are. They're just names without some kind of description of what they are. It should be made clear that they represent a particular view on economics. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many others believe that the New Deal was economic fascism. There is no need to source everyone. You don't know much about how Wikipedia works do you?  Things have to be sourcABLE, not necessarily sourced. A quick search on Google will show you all the people arguing that the New Deal was fascist economcs. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a need to source everyone. You must source everyone you are using as a source, particularly when you are stating nonmainstream views. I remind you, once more, that the mainstream don't even use the term "economic fascism".James James 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No there is NOT a need to source everyone. One or two is fine. Is this all alien to you? I thought everyone knew that Roosevelt's economic plan was attacked as being fascist.  Maybe you should be working on an article about something you have more knowledge about. RJII 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You've broken the 3RR rule. You aren't willing to face the penalty for it are you?  Yet you got me banned for it the other day. There's a word for that kind of behavior. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't banned for breaking the 3RR, even though you reverted an article nine times. You were banned for disruption and you should have been given the same treatment today when you repeated the same behaviour.  You've broken the 3RR again today, and I didn't even bother to report you. I'm trying to move on and give you a chance to collaborate. You don't seem to be interested in that. James James 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I have not broken the 3RR rule today. The reason you haven't reported it is because it didn't happen and you know it, so don't try to play it off as some kind of benevolence. Your behavior is appalling. RJII 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why did you remove the glass quote?  james james above was just complaining about lack of sources, so I added one. Now you deleted it. You said it was "inflammatory," but anything is going to sound "inflammatory" when it's labeled "fascist" or "Hitlerism," etc. I think that removal was unjustified. RJII 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because he wasn't really talking about economic fascism just about his gripes with FDR and because he's an obscure source with a bit of a reputation for being a classic "cantankerous southerner" who would have had a long list of reasons to resent FDR for all sorts of things completely unrelated to this subject.  He isn't a good source and his statement was completely over-the-top.  --SpinyNorman 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Now what? I put in the claim without the source. And you remove the claim saying it's unsupported. You removed the support! RJII 08:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no support.  That's why I removed it.  You said "The New Deal was also attacked at the time of its implementation as being fascist economics." but you don't say who was doing the attacking or who was reporting the attacking.  This isn't an editorial page.  These articles aren't to draw inferences or conclusions, they are to report fact.   --SpinyNorman 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you deleted the source. RJII 09:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  The Glass quote?  One grouchy southern politician with a bone to pick with FDR isn't really very much support.  --SpinyNorman 09:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: james james deleting sourced information

message: "Economic fascism was practiced in Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler."
:Duh. Mussolini was in charge when fascism was going on,  ..likewise for Hitler. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my actual objection, rather than rudely attacking a straw man. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no objective. Just a unfounded deletion. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If economic fascism is a meaningless term then why are scholars using it?  It may be meaningless to you, but not to those of us who employ the term. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please source the section to scholars saying that Hitler practised it in Germany and Mussolini practised it in Italy. The opinions of "those of you" who use the term are not useful to Wikipedia unless you have had them published in a reputable source. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absolutely insane. The article is ABOUT the economic systems under Mussolini and Hitler. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is indeed sourced. Look a few sentences down. Ebeling says that the New Deal was economic fascism. RJII 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the sentence should say "Ebeling says that the New Deal..." etc. But it doesn't. It says "some" say it. You need to say who Ebeling is. In fact, you need to note who all the people you source are. They're just names without some kind of description of what they are. It should be made clear that they represent a particular view on economics. James James 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many others believe that the New Deal was economic fascism. There is no need to source everyone. You don't know much about how Wikipedia works do you?  Things have to be sourcABLE, not necessarily sourced. A quick search on Google will show you all the people arguing that the New Deal was fascist economcs. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a need to source everyone. You must source everyone you are using as a source, particularly when you are stating nonmainstream views. I remind you, once more, that the mainstream don't even use the term "economic fascism".James James 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No there is NOT a need to source everyone. One or two is fine. Is this all alien to you? I thought everyone knew that Roosevelt's economic plan was attacked as being fascist.  Maybe you should be working on an article about something you have more knowledge about. RJII 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You've broken the 3RR rule. You aren't willing to face the penalty for it are you?  Yet you got me banned for it the other day. There's a word for that kind of behavior. RJII 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't banned for breaking the 3RR, even though you reverted an article nine times. You were banned for disruption and you should have been given the same treatment today when you repeated the same behaviour.  You've broken the 3RR again today, and I didn't even bother to report you. I'm trying to move on and give you a chance to collaborate. You don't seem to be interested in that. James James 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I have not broken the 3RR rule today. The reason you haven't reported it is because it didn't happen and you know it, so don't try to play it off as some kind of benevolence. Your behavior is appalling. RJII 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why did you remove the glass quote?  james james above was just complaining about lack of sources, so I added one. Now you deleted it. You said it was "inflammatory," but anything is going to sound "inflammatory" when it's labeled "fascist" or "Hitlerism," etc. I think that removal was unjustified. RJII 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because he wasn't really talking about economic fascism just about his gripes with FDR and because he's an obscure source with a bit of a reputation for being a classic "cantankerous southerner" who would have had a long list of reasons to resent FDR for all sorts of things completely unrelated to this subject.  He isn't a good source and his statement was completely over-the-top.  --SpinyNorman 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Now what? I put in the claim without the source. And you remove the claim saying it's unsupported. You removed the support! RJII 08:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no support.  That's why I removed it.  You said "The New Deal was also attacked at the time of its implementation as being fascist economics." but you don't say who was doing the attacking or who was reporting the attacking.  This isn't an editorial page.  These articles aren't to draw inferences or conclusions, they are to report fact.   --SpinyNorman 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you deleted the source. RJII 09:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  The Glass quote?  One grouchy southern politician with a bone to pick with FDR isn't really very much support.  --SpinyNorman 09:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: in biiiig letters
look who contributes
Libertarian Alliance not just thinks he is one but gave him an award for a lifetime of being one
Why are the Libertarian Party even asking him to run?
Michigan libertarians think he's one
These people think he's one
By the way, removing the word "libertarian" was another revert to a previous version. Please replace the word. I've sourced it. James James 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denying he's a libertarian. I just wanted to see a source --as far as I knew he was just a laissez-faire advocate --I had no information on his view on civil liberties. Just making sure you guys are not advertising libertarianism without good reason. RJII 08:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In future, it would be helpful if you didn't just assume that the usage was incorrect and did a little research first.  If you'd checked his wiki article, you'd have seen that he describes himself as a libertarian.  I notice you didn't request a source that Ronald Reagan is a Republican.  ;->  --SpinyNorman 09:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he a member of the Libertarian Party? If not, then the "l" shouldn't be capitaliized. RJII 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The links above show pretty clearly that he's a Libertarian.  My suggestion to you is that you research more and if that means you have to edit a little less, then so be it.  --SpinyNorman 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion to you is you don't delete direct quotes that support a claim, then delete the claim with the excuse that it's not supported. RJII 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So that's a "no" then?   To the idea of doing more research, I mean... --SpinyNorman 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a suggestion, in regard to the Glass quote. RJII 09:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I see no evidence in those links that he's a member of the Libertarian Party. I suggest you do a bit of research before you make such a claim. The fact that he refused to run for vice president in the Libertarian Party certainly is not evidence. RJII 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You (chuckle) "see no evidence"?  I'll give you a hint: check the first link of the group that James provided and look for the phrase "Richard M. Ebeling - Libertarian".  It is, I daresay, difficult to miss.  --SpinyNorman 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be capitaliized only because it's a title. Nowhere in that article does it say he's a member of the Libertarian Party. Do you understand that there is such a thing as libertarians who are not members of the U.S. Libertarian Party (often because they disagree with their political philosophy)? I would think most libertarians are not members of the U.S. Libertarian Party. If someone is in that party, the "l" is capitalized. If they're philosophical libertarians then it's a small "l." RJII 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebeling -- libertarian? 

message: Spiny, got a source for your claim: "The economics of fascism is a phrase used by some economic theorists (typically libertarian and capitalists)" ? RJII 09:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is self-evident.  It is a phrase - "A sequence of words intended to have meaning" .  It is used by some economic theorists, again, as the article itself points out and since they are typically libertarian and capitalist, this part is also self-evident.  --SpinyNorman 09:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? That is, do you have a libertarian using that term?  The only time I've seen that phrase used is the title of a conference on economic fascism.  Libertarians just call it what everybody else calls it  ..economic fascism. My suggestion to you is that you do some research before you make a strange claim like that. RJII 09:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: source requested

message: This article is violating NPOV by presenting this argument as historical fact.
The "third way" definition is a biased opinion, based on some selective claims.
This article finds convoluted ways (such as selective quotes) to tell you that fascism is really the area between socialism and capitalism
"The fascist economy differs from capitalism, in which the means of production are largely privately owned and mostly privately controlled in a mainly free market. It also differs from statist forms of socialism and communism where the means of production are owned by the state."
::That is an inaccurate characterisation.  As been stated in the AFD, there is no such thing as a "fascist economy.." Fascism is not an economic value.  Not to mention every second word is vague, capitalism and socialism too are generalisations if not given context.
Also, even assuming this article is covering an argument, not historical fact, devoting 1/3 page space on comparisons between fascism and the New Deal is biased.  You would think the U.S. expansions of Corporate Rights, growth of a heirarchical system, and all the right-wing economic stuff possibly associated with Hitler, would be written about too.--sansvoix 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some libertarians make the argument that the U.S. heading toward economic fascism because of this collusion between government and business. I guess we could add that argument if you insist. RJII 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The third way stuff is sourced. A claim is not made ..claims are only made about what people say about economic fascism (so there is nothing POV). And, the father of fascism himself, Mussolini, called it a third way  --said it wasnt capitalism or socialism. RJII 09:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for Mussolini, but every economy in the world is a "third way." What I'm saying is that presenting Fascism as an distinct economic ideology is incorrect.  While this seems like a minor issue, it is important in the wide sense here.  Giving Fascism its own loose economic system, a concrete "third way" that "differs" from both "capitalism" and "socialism and communism" prebuilds a strawman for any and all economic policy that falls into that wide definition.  Of course it is legitimate to make some factual comparisons, between individual things.  If you really are looking for some US right-wing fascist comparisons, a good one is Right-to-work laws!  It would be easy to write about, as Fascist dismantling of trade unions power is well documented! --sansvoix 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but it's not a POV issue, because like I said the article doesn't assert that --rather the sources do. If you've got a source that disputes the existence of a fascist economic system, add it in. My guess is it would not be too difficult to find some source that claim, for example, that Fascist Italy or Germany was capitalism (by someone using some antiquated definition of capitalism that doesn't include private control and a free market (laissez-faire) as characteristics). If you can fine one, add it in  --the more controversy the better. RJII 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Npov violations 

message: RJII is now reverting the article bit by bit, a death of a thousand cuts. In particular he is changing references to the "economics of fascism" (IOW, the things that the various fascist polities had in common economically) to "fascist economy" (a neologism in this sense largely of his own invention), among other minor and not so minor reversions, all aimed at pushing a POV. A third of the article is dedicated to a thesis that the New Deal was fascist, which is rather disproportionate, given how little of the article describes the economic systems of the fascist nations. Japan and Spain don't even get a mention. It's a strange world in which FDR is a fascist but Franco isn't. James James 10:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a job for you then. Research the economic fascism of Japan and Spain and add it to the article. Get busy. RJII 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how either "economics of fascism" or "fascist economy" defines this article.  Neither one makes any sense!  Both look like the title of an article about fascist economics.  --sansvoix 10:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd see all three as broadly equivalent. The problem is that RJII wants the article to be about something else; he essentially wants the article to talk about fascism/economics in order to be able to make the point that some people have argued that the US (and specifically the New Deal) is economically fascist. This conflicts with what everyone else wants, which is to talk about economics/fascism nexus for its own sake. This (in view of RJII's legendary patience - see eg Talk:Coercive monopoly) isn't going to get resolved by debate or editing, unless everyone else gives up and leaves him to it. So what happened to my suggestion above of splitting the article between this one (for general fascism/economics) and (theory of ) economic fascism for a (NPOV and sourced) description of the views (properly attributed to theorists X, Y and Z) RJII wants to present? Rd232 talk 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're really mischaracterizing me there. If you study the talk pages, you'll find I didn't create a section on economic fascism in the US until I was prodded by several to do so who claimed that the article was POV because there was no mention of the argument from the libertarians.  My preference is that the article focuses on presenting the characterstics of all the historically fascist economies. The New Deal matter deserves a small section because it seems to be a siginificant and notable view that it was fascist economics, but if anyone thinks it's disproportionate it's just because the rest of the article needs more information. You guys are making complaints but not doing any research. I'm the ONLY one that has done ANY research and has added ANY information and sources. It's really pathetic. Stop complaining and get to work. You two have done NOTHING. RJII 18:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm sorry if I misunderstood your priorities here. It's true I haven't contributed to the article, and don't intend to; I only came here via RFC to see if I could help clarify things. (Apparently not.) But if you are interested in the general topic, why are you so hung up on the phrase "economic fascism"? Rd232 talk 18:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not anymore, actually. I prefer a more generic term for the title of the article now. That way, the issue of whether "libertarians" use a particular term is not relevant and more important things can be dealt with. I thought "economics of fascism" was extremely generic, but as you can see someone has even edited the article to say that "libertarians and capitalists" use the "phrase" --which is really bizarre. RJII 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascist economy is not the same as economics of fascism 

message: I don't think we need to include our personal theses on how economics in fascism differs from that in capitalism or socialism, so I've removed the original research.
If this is replaced with mainstream sources, that's fine, but please also include a discussion, from a mainstream source on the economics employed in the fascist nations, because this is missing. James James 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, to you, constitutes a "mainstream" source? I have a feeling you're going to discount any laissez-faire advocates, even though economic libertarianism is mainstream. RJII 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the fundamental issues, RJII, I think we should stick to textbook-style definitions. Surely you can see that some anarcho-capitalist with a website is not a "mainstream" source? James James 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So far as I know, I haven't. You need to stop reverting when you edit. James James 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you have and I've had to fix it before. Just now you deleted the link to the Ebeling reference. RJII 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third way section 

message: Please name any theorist who could not fairly be described as a "libertarian" who proposes this theory. James James 02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Flynn? RJII 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And, Schmitt, a socialist. RJII 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And, Michael Coren, a "social conservative." RJII 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you pulling my leg? These are people you quoted, not theorists who propose the theory you're pushing.James James 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Flynn wasn't a libertarian, and Flynn was a major source for the laying out the characteristics of economic fascism. He was a liberal though. That would be a less problematic term. RJII 03:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a neoliberal before they invented the word. If you wanted to say "some, mainly libertarian and neoliberal, theorists", that would be okay too. That would more or less cover Coren too. But it can't stand as it is, you must surely agree? James James 03:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neoliberal? That's one term that doesn't make sense describing someone from the 1940's in retrospect. "Classical liberalism" is the term to use if you're worried about being confused for contemporary Welfare Liberalism. RJII 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect you could write me a thesis on the difference, but it's angels on the tip of a pin stuff. How about trying to find an alternative that you like? That's what I'm trying to do, to rescue the intro from the mess you've made of it. Clearly, you object to "libertarian". How about "some, mainly antistatist, theorists"? That would capture what Flynn and Ebeling have in common, no?James James 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made a "mess" of anything in the article. Our conversation comes to a close right here. I tried to collaborate civily with you, taking the chance that you might be a decent person afterall, and it was a big mistake. RJII 03:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't "collaborated" at all. You munged the intro so that you could remove the word "libertarian". Because I'm concerned that the intro should be fair, I'm trying to find an alternative that will suit us both. You're simply obstructing that rather than trying to move it forward. The intro is still munged! Do you not see that that is not a sentence? James James 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I want to remove the word "libertarian" I will do it outright. Why on Earth would I not? I had no need to engage in any kind of shady behavior to remove it. I had every right to remove the word. You need to back off with you accusations of bad faith. RJII 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, it would be yet another revert, and you'd be blocked for it. Assuming good faith is not the same as letting someone who's kicked you in the nuts have another pop at them. Anyway, I'm here to discuss the article and how we fix the mess, not your good, bad or indifferent faith. So what do you think of "some, mainly antistatist, theorists"? Do you agree on that? Or will you suggest a reasonable alternative? James James 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't be a "revert." And there is no "mess" to fix. The article is not perfect, but it's a pretty good starter article. NPOV and sourced. RJII 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read the opening sentence? You don't think it's a mess? It lacks a main verb.James James 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Even our article defines Flynn as a "classical liberal". You're surely not going to try arguing that a "classical liberal" is a "liberal" as the latter is nowadays understood? James James 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just libertarian 

message: james, why do you delete everything that's not a quote? Your're really screwing up the article by deleting obvious statements. Everybody knows that the fascist economies were not laissez-faire. Can you find a source that says they were? Every source there says that government was intervening in the economy. RJII 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's factual that economic fascism is in opposition to laissez-faire. RJII 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of things are factual. Encyclopaedias try to break the facts down into separate articles. That means that each article has the appropriate facts, not wildly inappropriate ones. Particularly those that bias the article to a particular point of view. Fascists opposed all kinds of things, but we don't note them in this article. Why? Because this article is not about these things. You've already quoted Mussolini as saying his system was a third way, so we know what the fascists themselves were aiming for. No need for your interpretation, hey? James James 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You've got to be kidding. I didn't revert. You really need to cut out your harrassment. RJII 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well. I'll just take it all out tomorrow. It's the worst kind of POV pushing. You're trying to create a thesis. Mussolini did not discuss "laissez-faire" economics in the terms you suggest -- he simply didn't set up the dichotomy you are trying to frame this as. You also quoted him showing disdain for classical liberalism. He showed disdain for a lot of things, it ought to be noted, but curiously you don't note it. And you already sourced Dennis in the previous section! The exact same argument, pushed at two ends. When you start repeating the same nonsense in different places in an article to "source" your discussion, you've probably stepped over the edge as far as POV pushing goes. And yes, it was a revert. Expanding the text doesn't mean you didn't reinstate what was taken out. James James 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't revert. Not only is it harrassment, it's a lie. A created a whole new section that wasn't there before with new material. RJII 03:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not new. It's more of the same. Just because there's lots more doesn't make it fresh. Still, it's there. I can't be bothered jumping through hoops to get you blocked since it won't disappear anyway. You refuse to discuss your edits on talk but force them through regardless. So I'll be back tomorrow and I'll remove it then. It's a pity that's the way we have to work, but I guess you libertarian types don't go in much for social solutions, hey? James James 04:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's ridiculous. You're out of control. RJII 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: james deleting things for no good reason

message: SpinyNorman is censoring out this very relevant statement: "Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor said: "At the first meeting of the cabinet after the President took office in 1933, the financier and advisor to Roosevelt, Bernard Baruch, and Baruch's friend, General Hugh Johnson, who was to become the head of the National Recovery Administration, came in with a copy of a book by [Gio-vanni] Gentile, the Italian Fascist theoretician [Mussolini's Education Minister], for each member of the Cabinet, and we all read it with care." It makes sense for it to be there, because the article says Reagan doesn't point out who he's talking about when he says the New Deal was based on fascism. Hugh Johnson is one of those people --he was an admirer of the Mussolini plan and modeled the NRA after it. RJII 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not relevant.  Hugh Johnson wasn't a cabinet member - whether or not he admired Mussolini is irrelevant.  What books the cabinet may or may not have read are irrelevant.  And if you can't be bothered to spell Giovanni Gentile's name correctly, how can we be sure you understand the relevance of his writings?  I believe this is just another attempt by you to try to equate the New Deal with fascism, which is simply incorrect and unsupported by anything apart from a handful of strutting politicians and economic extremists.  --SpinyNorman 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Hugh Johnson was the head of the NRA --the part of the New Deal that was found unconstitutional. RJII 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Describe it as a theory or a term, just don't describe it as a foregone conclusion.  --SpinyNorman 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perkins memory must be faulty. There was no such English language book by Gentile in 1933 -- all his books were in Italian except for two from pre-fascism days (one in philosophy 1922 and another on education 1922). (I checked all holdings at Library of Congress, Yale, and U of California) So maybe the entire FDR cabinet read a book in Italian? Or else Perkins, a very elderly lady at the time, got all mixed up. Rjensen 08:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: Flynn seems to be one source - u cannot extrapolate out from that and put the planned economy wikilinks all over article --max rspct leave a message  17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a source. And you're deleting sourced information. Flynn is famous for comparing the US economy under Roosevelt to fascist economies. Are you going to force me to get even more sources and make the article look more biased? Rest assured, I can do that. RJII 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And, don't you realize that "central planning" links to planned economy anyway? RJII 17:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes capital was in private hands in Fascist Germany. That's the whole thesis here. There was private ownership, but as the editor of that section pointed out the State "sets prices, profit margins and the allocation of raw materials." So, full private property rights were not allowed. That's a planned economy. In a free market, a business sells its products for whatever prices it wants, take what ever profit it wants, etc.  RJII 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." -Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary Enough said. RJII 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It says "mainly" free market. Because an absolutely free market could only occur in anarchism. People rarely use the term "free market" in an absolutist sense. Get with the program. In Nazi Germany, there was private ownership of the means of production but the market was not "mainly" free --it was highly coordinated with investment decisions made by the state.  Therefore, it was not capitalism. But, if you want to press the issue, there are plenty of definitions that don't say "mainly," For example: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition  Now, if the state is setting profit margins, then how on Earth can it be capitalism? RJII 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "the state sets prices, profit margins and the allocation of raw materials." Also, Buchheim and Scherner describe the system as a "state-directed private ownership economy." You're going to have to look long and hard to find a source that says the Nazi economy was anything approaching a free market. RJII 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Monopoly capital" --in other words government-backed protection of monopoly  --the antithesis of a free market in capital.  And the state is taking over the "entrepreneurial function." RJII 15:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In capitalism, the private sector takes care of the entrepreneurial function --not the state. RJII 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sohn-Rehtel says: "In this case capitalism can survive in the paradoxical shape of the 'corporate state' in which the contridiction between the social character of production and the private appropriation of capital assumes the form of a state-run economy on private account"  In other words, capitalism becomes transmogrified into corporativism and the system becomes a planned economy. RJII 15:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the essence of economic fascism. A planned economy with private ownership of capital. In socialism, it's a planned economy with state ownership of capital. RJII 16:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not at all. Now you are schooled on the fact that the German economy had no semblance of a free market. RJII 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flynn

message: TomtheHand, according to Wikipedia policy, you're supposed to discuss in Talk why you're putting an NPOV tag on an article, so the problem, if there is one, can be fixed. I'm going to have to remove it again, unless you explain. No one else seems to have an NPOV problem with the article. If they do, they can put the tag on and EXPLAIN. The tag is supposed to be a tool so the POV can be removed. If you don't explain, then there's nothing that can be done to fix what you percieve to the problem. RJII 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, EVERYONE has an NPOV problem with the article.  I have no idea why the tag was removed in the first place.  The entire article misleads the reader into thinking that the middle ground between communism and capitalism is economic fascism.  It is my hope that the NPOV tag will encourage others to come and contribute to the page. TomTheHand 18:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're wrong. No one has expressed a NPOV problem in quite awhile. You're the only one. So you need to explain the problem so we can fix it. The NPOV tag is not supposed to be used as a permanent branding just because you don't like the article. RJII 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My definition of "quite awhile" extends for more than a couple of hours, so I consider Ekpardo, max rspct, SpinyNorman, and James James, who all expressed the opinion that the article was POV within the last few days, to constitute an adequate group to say that there may be issues with the article.  My issue is that the article implies that you can have fascist economics without being a fascist nation; that is, if you apply certain economic policies, you're practicing fascism. TomTheHand 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it imply that? It simply mentions sources that claim that. No one has to agree with the sources. It even says in opposition: "It should also be noted that just because a nation or government has some of the characteristics listed above, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are employing the economics of fascism..."  So where is the POV?  RJII 18:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom and NPOV tag

message: I've added some material on Spain, falangism, etc. just below the case studies of Germany and Italy. I'm quite aware of my inadequacies as a historian of Spain in the troubled period I've tried to evoke, and look forward to help in keeping this both factual and NPOV. (I'm glad that those who were working to delete this article have adopted the healthier course and are now working to contribute to it.) --Christofurio 15:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cached:  RJII 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I wasn't aware that geography was a disqualification for  source. What valley would you prefer the "bloke" be from? And the link is working again. --Christofurio 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: *Please do not insert tangential assertions that ideas from fascist countries were adopted elsewhere in the sections on the political economy of those countries. That type of comment belongs in the section at the end of the article
*Please provide sources for assertions like "Ronald Reagan though the New Deal was fascism" and "New Dealers quoted 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' ".
*Please allow the clear majority view about economic fascism space to breathe in the section about the Austrain school view, and refrain from adding more economists who support it. Then we won't list economists who opose that view, either.
This will help the article develop a more neutral point of view. The Land 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed the title of the section to "'Economic Facism' as a critique of all state intervention." Where do you see these people saying that all state intervention is fascist economics?  I think it's clear that they're talking about an overall systemic thing.  RJII 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's too strong. However, we can only have it one way. Either there is a general point about state intervetion, or there is a specific point about the New Deal. What we will not have is a section about the New Deal and a set of heavy implications about state intervention in general. The Land 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more than the New Deal, but it's also more than mere intervention --these people talk about the NEw Deal ias being the import of fascist economics but also talk about the accumulation of intervention that as a whole converts the US to a fascist-style planned economy. RJII 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case the article should say so, clearly. The Land 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've edited the article to have a New Deal version of that paragraph in it, rather than a general one. The Land 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Source for the Reagan quote is an interview in May 17 1976 Time Magazine. RJII 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks. Is it listed? The Land 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it is now; thanks!
I'd like to see some sources that say the New Deal was not modeled on the fascist system. It's my understanding that that's pretty widely accepted. I'd think we need a source for the statement that "the argument that economic intervention on scales as large as FDR's New Deal are related to fascism is not widely accepted beyond some Austrian school economists." I'm not convinced of the truth of that. RJII 19:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspect there might be one or two sources arguing it was based on Keynesianism instead. The Land 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What seemed to cross ideological lines by 1932 or 1933 was the idea that lazziez faire capitalism was not going to end the Depression (except among the most ardent lazziez faire capitalists).  My claims to economic knowledge are modest, yet a number of different countries were experimenting with government intervention and mixed economies.  If that impression is correct - and better scholars please comment - then it seems this article faces two challenges: first identify the economic similarities between Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy; then identify the economic distinctions between these three states and other major powers.  In particular, how did they differ from France, the United Kingdom, and the United States?  I haven't seen Japan in this conversation but it may bear mention. Durova 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Without involving myself in the debate, I would like to make a general observation: If a view is fringe enough, you will not find any refutations of it, simply because no scholar takes it seriously enough to be worth refuting. Suppose, for example, that a small group of fringe geographers argued that the Earth is shaped like a giant triangular prism. Would any academics bother refuting that theory? No. You will not be able to find anyone specifically saying that the Earth is not shaped like a triangular prism. Could you then conclude that no one opposes the Prismatic Earth Theory? Hardly.
Thus, an absence of refutations of a certain theory does not prove that the theory in question is widely accepted. It may be widely ignored, or widely considered too absurd to bother with. This is a general point to keep in mind for this article. Thank you. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear. The Land 15:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, but the opinion that the New Deal, for example, was modeled on the Fascist system is not fringe. It's just common knowledge. And, that's why it might be hard to find refutations of that. It would be a blatant disregard for history.  RJII 15:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the other problem is that those who hold fringe views consider them to be perfectly logical and "common knowlege".  The idea that you can equate fascism and the New Deal is laughable.  "Common it may be, knowledge it is not" - Peter Spence.  --SpinyNorman 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, if the New Deal is modeled on a fascist system, then which system was that? The only fascist system that predates the New Deal was Mussolini's Italy. Hitler came to power after Roosevelt, so it is chronologically impossible for the New Deal to be modeled on Nazi policies. The same applies to Franco's policies. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on refutations of fringe views 

message: If you're going to discuss what is "chronologically impossible," you have an especial obligation to get your facts right. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany more than a month ahead of Roosevelt's inauguration in the US. Using bold text for a false statement doesn't make it true. (here)  You might have meant something other than his Chancellorship by the expression "come to power," but in that case you might have been more specific, and the impossibility you allege is would seem to imply that Hitler didn't have any sort of power prior to FDR's presidency. 
Though frankly I disbelieve in any causal link, I'd like to make two other obvious points here about its possibility. First, the "New Deal" isn't some monolithic thing that was imposed in March 1933 and stayed in place thereafter. Well after the "hundred days," FDR engaged in many shifts of course and referred to each new shift as a new stage of the "New Deal". Follow the above link to verify if you like. So the term meant something different by 1937 or 1938 than it had meant in the campaign of 1932 or during the initial burst of legislation in the late winter and the spring of 1933, creating room for the sort of borrowing that your rather simplistic use of dates is designed to exclude. 
Second, the fascists of Europe had been talking up their own theories long before they took power and (in Franco's case) they were largely inspired by a previous dictator, de Rivera. So the ideological influence of the European movements could have been a factor on the US developments from the start.
  --Christofurio 13:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Note on Getting Chronology Right

message: RJII, do not remove the NPOV tag. It is very clear that a lot of people consider this article needs more work before it is neutral. Thanks. The Land 16:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is a real one.  This is a clear attempt by a small group of people with a fringe view to attempt to lend that fringe view legitimacy by giving it a pseudo-scholarly write-up and neglecting to mention that it is a fringe view.  While it is clear that certain fascist states in history have used similar economic controls, the attempt to equate non-fascist governments with them because of certain superficial similarities is bordering on libel.  Until those aspects of the article are either removed as irrelevant or else properly qualified, the "disputed" tag should stay.  It is more appropriate than the NPOV tag in any case.  --SpinyNorman 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. A couple people are putting up an NPOV tag because they're are upset at the POV of the sources. As long as an article doesn't assert anything but rather gives sources for those that assert something, the editorial isn't POV. If they think something in the editorial is POV then they should be able to give recommendations so we can fix the percieved problem. The NPOV tag is supposed to be a tool to fix NPOV problems rather than a permanent branding on an article just beuase you don't like the POV of the sources. RJII 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's an article that quotes 15 different sources saying 'the Earth is flat', it's not NPOV. The Land 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, so long as the article notes that this is the opinion or belief of said source of citation there is no problem.  This article mentions nothing about FDR being a Fascist factually only that his policies are considered fascists or to have fascist roots or similiarities by certain individuals.  This is not a violation of the npov rule.  I'm sick and tired of certain people making up rules as they go along and making these rules suite their political prefrences  (Gibby 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly would be NPOV. You're not seeing that an NPOV tag is for problems with the editorializing being NPOV, not the sources. Anytime an economist (or anyone) says anything, it's an opinion and is therefore a POV. Pointing out the POV an economist does not make an article POV. If you can find sources from scholars saying that the Earth is flat, and you note them and quote them, there is nothing "POV" about that. RJII 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Please read WP:NPOV. Differing views should all be covered, and covered broadly in proportion to their acceptance. The appropriate response to the hyopthetical example above would be to remove some of the flat-earth sources and add new ones. While this is going on, an NPOV tag is entirely appropriate. Furthermore, a consensus of editors on one side of the argument is not a consensus that we have an NPOV article. The Land 21:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's fine. Seems like there would be a tag for specifically that, though. Also, you probably weren't aware, but when you delete things and moving things around you need to adjust the references list. RJII 05:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Gibby, a NPOV tag is to be placed on any page that is claimed to be POV by any number of active editors. If some people are editing an article and accusing each other of POV-pushing, that means the NPOV tag should be put up. The NPOV tag should be placed on any article where there is a POV dispute. Is there a POV dispute here? Yes. End of story. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Gibby, stop edit-warring. The Land 16:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I've redone the first section hoping that it will make more sense, so the discussion is arranged more by ecoonomic topic and is less a list of quotes. In the process I removed two source references. One was a second source backing up an uncontested point, the other was a reference to another encyclopedia. Hope this works OK. The Land 19:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.. Does anyone have an opinion on Big Business in the Third Reich by Arthur Schweitzer. I have read an anthology of debate around Origins of the Second World War.. (with A.P Taylor and others).. In it (in notes) is mentioned that this Schweitzer book was first of its kind  business and the Nazi regime. -- max rspct leave a message  20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to 'third way' section. 

message: I've changed this around a bit. I've moved the more general material about NAzi Germany to the top, and introduced the Michal Kalecki and military keynesianism concepts which are rather important. Then I've put most of the Sohn-Rethel in a subsection: am I right in guessing it's a very marxist analysis? The Land 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How  "very"? .. according to the wpdia article on him "He joined the communist party and despite his disillusionment he was a member until 1972" (sound a bit like E. P. Thompson, perhaps Eric Hobsbawm or even Christopher Hill) The book i have been quoting from was published in german for the first time (according to amazon) in 1973 , in english in 1978. Have u come across the Arthur Schweitzer book above? -- max rspct leave a message  22:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are lots of different reasons for quiting the CP, especially since that's dependent upon the course of the specific CP in question, so your analogies don't help answer your question about how "very" Marxist his analysis might be. At any rate, The Land's point seems a good one about the degree of emphasis he shoudl or shouldn't get here. He does have his own article, after all. If you think his particular theories need more expansive renditions, do so there. --Christofurio 13:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany 

message: "These characteristics are sometimes cited to support claims that economic policies under non-fascist governments are either inspired by, or share common values with, fascist regimes."
:Does this really need 'incorrectly' added to it? I think it's difficult to say for sure that no policy of any Western government was 'inspired by' or 'shares common values with' any Fascist state. For instance, full employment was a fascist goal and is quite an economic policy objective. IMV it's more important to clarify the article so trivial similarities like this one aren't taken out of proprtion than it is to remove any suggestion that nice governmets might be like bad people. The Land 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. That would be "POV" --an outright editorial assertion like that. RJII 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The tag is on for illegitimate reasons.  Reporting the economic policies of fascist governments is not a fringe view. Neither is reporting the opnions of critics of the New Deal and modern "liberal" government...especially if said critics are U.S. Presidents or NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS!!!!!!!!
This is not a content dispute these editors are having this is a last ditch ideological dispute based on little to no good reasons for such a tag.  The disputing editors are likely more in love with the New Deal or economic intervention and do not want an association with fascism (Which they probably don't understand anyway) than properly editing articles or allowing factual and cited information contrary to their own beliefs be read on wiki.  These editors are wiki bullies and vandals.
(Gibby 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Land, while I disagree with Gibby's position, I don't believe that anyone's contributions to the talk page should be deleted unless they are outright vandalism (blanking, random obscenities, modification of others' posts, etc). TomTheHand 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. The Land 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, there is also a major complaint that libertarian authors are given undue weight in this article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that only libertarians criticize fascism? In order to be NPOV, the article should include a roughly balanced amount of views from libertarians, socialists, conservatives, and fascists themselves. Also, please note that the purpose of this article is not to criticize the economics of fascism, but to explain what they are. Finally, inserting a mere NPOV-warning tag can hardly be counted as "vandalism". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Or libertarian socialists. Reporting that they are fascists is indeed POV, especially since they do not profess themselves to be - you are using a political etiphet. Reporting on activity in and of itself is not POV. However, mentioning it in an article about fascism can be disputed, as one is basically representing the view that the New Deal is the same as being fascist, etc. - and again, please do see the issues about undue weight. And please be civil. Do all libertarians use the word "bullshit" as freely as you? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, stating someone's published critical opinion is not a pov.  Get it right.  I reserve civility for competent people.  And bullshit is the most discriptive word for the complaints about this page.  (Gibby 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is indeed hypocritical in argument then. There also must not be undue weight. If there represent a minority view, ie. with not that much impact, then it must not dominate the entire article, or even have a large amount of weight that is more than it deserves, in this case, an entire section. Civility applies to anyone, not merely people you select, just as rights apply to all. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV TAG III

message: I believe the present discussion of the NRA summarizes what the given  sources  actually show. Please present arguments that this should be reverted, rather than used as a basis for further development here. Septentrionalis 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The present text is what the evidence supports. Exaggerated claims without evidence are to be deprecated; more evidence is always welcome. Septentrionalis 22:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing was full of evidence --evidence that people regarded these things as economic fascism. You deleted it. RJII 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was full of quotes claiming that the NRA was similar to Mussolini's economic institutions; which statement I retained. That view  is not new (and I agree with it); it can be sourced to Roosevelt's cabinet.  It also contained one quote extending this to the AAA, which I also retained. If you have any quotes demonstrating other positions, please present them. Septentrionalis 04:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you dispute the similarity? Septentrionalis 05:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of having a quality article, I do dispute it. I request a source. RJII 05:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I recall some other New Deal memoirs recording the same comparison; but I'm not sure of which.  Septentrionalis 05:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think Michelson and Galbraith. Septentrionalis 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted NPoV rewrite

message: Numbering references and attempting to number the notes so they correspond is an imitation of print, which is not continually edited as a wiki is. I would divide up the references, placing the notes for each section at the end of the section, and not use the # facility at all. But I have other places to experiment with this; so it is merely a proposal. Septentrionalis 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References a bug?

message: Economic fascism differs, in tone and content from  the economics of fascism; I see that RJII has never recognized this; but I invite him to reconsider the page-move discussion. In the meantime, the last section is entititled to a much simpler title. Septentrionalis 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It's all the same thing. Economic fascism, fascist economics, fascist political economy, economics of fascism, political economy of fascism. Only using the phrase "economic of fascism" in the article is awkward and ridiculous. That phrase is not even used, in the first place, by theorists who assert the existence of a fascist political economy. I like it for the title of the article precisely because nobody really uses it, but there is no necessity to force that terminology in sentences --it comes out really awkward. RJII 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Mussolini and the NRA? Septentrionalis 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. I find the new edits to that section inferior to the previous version. The last version was sourced and had quotes, etc. RJII 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the paragraph includes Hoover's remark, it is worth noting that the comparison was supported within both parties. We wouldn't want this article to look like advocacy against the New Deal, would we? Septentrionalis 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any quotes from the names you cited that shows they thought it was fascist economics? RJII 02:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic fascism

message: A couple people are wrongly stating in the article that people explaining ecnomic fascism are saying that the practices are bad because fascists employed them. I'd like to see a source of this. I've seen nothing of the sort. RJII 04:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all "people explaining economic fascism" employ that fallacy. But some people obviously do. I have just given you four sources in the article. What exactly are you saying? That Reductio ad Hitlerum does not exist? The fallacy is in fact quite prominent, and readers need to be informed about it. That does not mean I am accusing anyone in particular of committing it. -- Nikodemos 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not saying that "Reductio ad Hitlerum" does not exist. I am saying no one has used it for this. You're putting it there making it look like the sources pointing out that fascist economics was tried in the U.S. were bad because fascists used those policies. But, they don't make any such claim. Putting that in is very deceptive and you have no source for any of them saying that. You're wrongly smearing these economists. RJII 04:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying anything about those economists. I do not claim that any of them committed the fallacy. Actually, I'm more worried about readers committing the fallacy. -- Nikodemos 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then there's a more NPOV way to say that. I did a rewrite. RJII 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I did a re-rewrite, mostly for clarity. -- Nikodemos 05:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reductio ad Hitlerum