Talk:Economics of fascism

message: Social Darwinism was undeniably an influence on fascist ideology, but the idea that fascism institutionalized destroying the economically less-fortunate smacks of viewing fascism as merely some sort of boogeyman without actually looking at the implemented policies. Welfare spending rose dramatically under Mussolini, from 7% in 1930 to 20% in 1940. Plus, the massive expansion in state employment was primarily of benefit to the middle and lower-middle classes. The Italian fascists, in effect, saw this as a part of their total reformation of Italian culture, and were more inclined to see individuals working in finance as "degenerate" than a blue-collar worker of Italian ethnicity (foreign ones, obviously, were not viewed so kindly).
::The unsourced figures on welfare spending quoted above seem wrong. Tytire (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some funny ideas on Italian fascism 

message: Okay I was just looking at this part and noticed it mostly unsourced and then the quote is only in a book and a google search of the words only comes up with the full on copy and paste quote from this article which does not really link to a source besides this book, so I'm going to myself just remove the quote, but I would like some more discussion on the first paragraph and some sourcing to the information.
FreedomIsNotEvil (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No you can't remove it. The quote is sourced from a book, which is acceptable for Wikipedia. The fact that you can'r find it independently on the Internet is not a reason to delete it. Have a read of WP:RS --FormerIP (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Economy of Italy

message: I went ahead and deleted the Schmitt source. As far as I know it's not published. It appears to simply be statements  on a personal website, hosted by "Franz and Jutta".  WP:V says: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." RJII 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow in the course of this deleting the latter footnotes became unmoored from the numeric sequence. --Christofurio 02:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schmitt source

message: Hitler did not practice any form of Darwinism, muchless "social Darwinism" and Darwin's books were banned from Germany. He believed in the "Great Chain of Being," with Aryans at the top. This is a POV violation and needs to be corrected, or supported with a citation from Hitler's writings - good luck with that. I'm changing it to eugenics until that time. -- wildlifer
:There is a significant difference between the Theory of Evolution and Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism does not even have to be based on Darwin's writings - it is simply the view that human society is improved by unrestrained competition and by the survival of the strong at the expense of the weak. -- Nikodemos 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  social Darwinism 

message: There is already talk about the "Economics of fascism" in the Italian Fascism and Nazi Germany articles. It seems to me that this article is redundant. The economics of fascism (the ideology) should be discussed in the Fascism article. The economics of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy should be foremostly discussed in the Nazi Germany and Italian Fascism articles. If the sections in those articles become too big, one can start talking about separate articles again. There is no need to talk about the economics of Italian Fascism and Nazi germany in the same article, neither the economics of fascist ideology needs to be discussed here. There is already a Fascism article and Corporatism article. Intangible 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have a point. However, if you look in the archive, you will notice that other editors have argued very strongly for a very long time in favor of keeping this article as it is. It was their belief that wikipedia needs a dedicated article to compare the economic policies of fascist countries. -- Nikodemos 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

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

message: These sentences got lost during an edit by Billy Ego a few days ago. I think they are vital and should be put back in:
One significant fascist belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening.William G. Welk, Fascist Economic Policy, Harvard University Press, 1938. pp. 38-39 As a result, fascists considered the economy to be of little importance and did not have clear economic views. Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", 1985, pp. 61-68
----
--DorisH 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. BobFromBrockley 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question dudes Is this sort of reference permitted? How is it verified? Cloveoil 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an amazing building called a "Library," which contains information printed on paper.--Cberlet 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OMGZ DUDEZ!!!!!!!ONEONEONE THAT^S CRAZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! I"D NEVAR HAV THOT OF THAT!!!!!ONEONEELEVENELEVEN. Instead of replying with smart ass comments, how about trying to answer the question? Believe it or not, nor every single library in the world has every single book ever written! OMGZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloveoil (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Material cut a few days ago

message: My purpose in making these edits was mainly to copyedit text that appeared written by a nonnative English speaker. I also made several POV-related edits (e.g., "the Falange was a government without popular support" -- depends on whom you asked; Opus Dei as "a cult") and trimmed the text in several places where the original author expressed a one-sentence thought in two or three sentences.
Additionally, the text delved at great length into the wider history of Spanish Falangism and its place within Franco's power structure. I left in the article enough information to show that Falangism, i.e., syndicalist fascism, was the dominant economic policymaking force in early Francoism, but failed to produce prosperity and was eclipsed by technocracy in the 1950s (although it remained present rhetorically -- that's an important point to make). Much more on this topic was deleted, and for the sake of discussion, I'll preserve it here:
DELETED FROM INTRO TO THIS SECTION:
:In 1933, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, son of the former authoritarian  Prime Minister, founded a political movement known as the Falange, or "phalanx." The Falange was not successful in the elections of 1936, elections that resulted in the creation of a Popular Front government. 
:When conservative elements of Spanish society supported Francisco Franco and the military in his war against the Popular Front, the Falange became associated with Franco's side in that war, and the government that arose from Franco's successes appropriated the ideas and some of the terminology of the Falange, including a nostalgia for the interventionism of Miguel Primo de Rivera.
:One falangist theorist, Federico de Utturia, described the goal of the movement as "to kill the old soul of the liberal, decadent, masonic, materialist and frenchified nineteenth century." 
ALSO DELETED, FARTHER DOWN: 
:Fascism and Franco
:After becoming the military leader of the war on communism and anarchism in Spain, Franco forced many political groups that was hostile to each other into a single party, and called it “the falange” because Falange had been the strongest group among them, and because they had the most good looking symbol. The aggression between the different groups of the falange continued even though they where now officially members of the same party, and at one point it even escalated into physical street-battles between the very conservative and royalist “Carlists” and the radical fascists of the original falange. In order to keep his artificial one-party state together, Franco had some people on both side shot as punishment for not keeping the peace, and to further fuse the different sections of the falange together, he always made sure that people from all the “political families” of the falange had some posts in government, however – the fascists got frustrated, and felt that they did not get the benefit of living in a truly fascist state, even though they had won the war. Franco Spain was something different than fascism from 1954 and beyond. Franco himself was an authoritarian traditionalist rightwinger, and as his grip over politics grew stronger – he turned away from fascism and created a religious, conservative police state based on a free market economy, instead of pursuing the fascist ideal of the wholist, organic state. The government of Augusto Pinochet in Chile was greatly inspired by Franco – and Franco was the first that congratulated Pinochet on his successful military coup in 1973.
 
:A world war 2 veteran that had fought with the blue legion at the east front during the war, and was a falange-member said the following about Franco Spain in the 1960s: 
:“It feels as if we have lost, even though we won” 
:Franco and his politics is not seen as proper fascism by fascists. Instead falanquism, with its main focus on catholisism, and conservativism should be seen as an ideology in its self, an ideology that is inspired by fascism, but is not fascism - the same way that Nazism is not fascism, but an offshoot inspired by it. Fascism is the original that all these mutations has sprung out from, just as Maoism and Titoism are offshots of classic Marxist-Leninism. 
:See a work by Stanley G. Payne, Falange. A History of Spanish Fascism Stanford University Press (1961).
All of this is interesting stuff, but it's not specifically economic. It's also already (and more appropriately) covered in Wikipedia articles about the Falange, the Movimiento Nacional and Franco's Spain. ``` W i k i W i s t a h W a s s a p ``` 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco's Spain 

message: I removed the sentence from the end of the intro.  There are two problems with it.  The first objection is relatively minor:  The references are just the names of authors -- they are, therefore, not reasonably verifiable.  A specific volume or, even better, a page number is required.  Second, though, and far more importantly, "a few" is poorly-quantified.  If this is a marginal viewpoint held only by a small number of people, it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight to place it in the lead.  Certainly Fascism is frequently used as an epithet, and just about every nation or major political party and their policies have been called Fascist at one time or another; this sentence, in other words, cannot simply go back in by saying that 'a few' people of unspecified authority and quantity see parallels between fascism and this-or-that.  Finding references that indicate individual people hold these views is not sufficient; the statement here requires references that indicate that a significant number of impartial people or historians hold that view. Wikipedia should not and does not list every single time anyone flings 'fascism' around as a political epithet. --Aquillion (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section from intro. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economics of fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511190923/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html to http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Economics of fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426102617/http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2003/Falk_FascistEmpire.html to http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2003/Falk_FascistEmpire.html
*Added  tag to http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_13_2_forgetting.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501145020/http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/buchheim-041020.pdf to http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/buchheim-041020.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_13_2_forgetting.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This edit uses a cite to Mussolini's “My Autobiography with The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism” to argue that he supported Socialism.  First, we need to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources, but second, that's a flat misrepresentation of the source.  While he acknowledges using it in his climb to power, Mussolini is extremely blunt in his contempt for socialism.  Here are some quotes from that book:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Nothing in there remotely implies that he "supported the economics of socialism", nor does it justify ignoring the numerous secondary sources we have exhaustively detailing the fact that Fascism was a reactionary movement that opposed international socialism. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, third-position enteryism is a wp:fringe political perspective and should not be entertained as fact by Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with  Aquillion. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The socialistic aspects of Fascism and Nazism have caused no amount of grief and argumentation, but to any objective observer, it's quite clear that, on the whole, these ideologies opposed socialism.  I'm a but more familiar with the situation in Germany than in Italy, and the Nazis there battled both the KPD (Communists) and the SPD (Socialists), first on the streetsm and then in the Reichstag.  When Hitler finally got unbridled power, he put both Socialists and Communists in concentration camps, and -- within the Nazi party -- he gradually drove out or killed the party members (like the Strasser brothers and rohm) who contonued to hold on to the socialistic aspects of the party platform, which were never put into effect. I think Aquillon has got it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: "From all this we may gather" -- no that is original research in primary sources, and cannot be used. The primary demand in socialism was class warfare, destroying capitalism and giving power to the workers. We do not see any of that in Mussolini's fascism. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Commonality of some specific beliefs does not equal acceptance of the ideology as a whole, even if you exclude internationalism.  Marxist-Leninism and Nazism are both authoritarian, but that commonality doesn't imply that either accepts the ideology of the other.  Left- and right-libertarians have a great deal in common, but it would go too far to say that they accept the other's ideology. That Fascism and Nazism have aspects in common with socialism, but that's a far cry from accepting socialism or being generally socialistic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have an article on Horseshoe theory. Doesn't mean these people can stand the ideology of the other. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: We anxiously await your reliable sources, and even how this relates to the article. O3000 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that is the bottom line here.  Reliable sources, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: They aren't reliable secondary sources as per WP:RS. You are taking primary sources and drawing conclusions WP:OR, I placed a welcome on your talk. I suggest you read it if you want your contributions to be accepted. O3000 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism vs. Marxism