Talk:Economics of fascism

POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is a fringe view. Libertarians get about 1% of the vote in the US. Firebug 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Most economic libertarians aren't absolutists in that way. Very few are against all intervention. RJII 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

fascist economies had in place price and wage controlls, government owned and run enterprises, macroeconomic like government investment into private enterprise. Hitler's government even worked to elievate poverty and create jobs. Fascism is simply socialism for the state, rather than attributing socialism for the people (either way the outcomes are the same). (Gibby 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

"Fringe view"

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)

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 [1]). 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)

"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)

"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)

"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)

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)

afd result

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus-default to keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

unethical actions by 172

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)

I'm glad this was kept, but....

...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)

• I didn't notice the NPOV box. Ironically, the article is not neutral, but I don't know where it is "factually inaccurate". Let's be accurate about the boxes. jucifer 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

These are two entirly different things. Create the other article too - but this one must restrain itself to dealing with the term in libetarianism. "Economic systems in Fascist States is a seperate issue. Take care. jucifer 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Look old chap

You know very well that "economic fascism" is only a term used by some libertarian thinkers to group together the economic systems of fascist states. This article MUST describe the theory or I personally will nominate it for deletion in two days time. You understand NPOV, I am not interested in pursuing this fruitless discussion.

Yours, jucifer 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be that only "libertarian thinkers" use the term "economic fascism." Feel free to state that in the article. But, that's so trivial. Should we also go through the list of other terms? Who instead of using the term "economic fascism" uses "fascist political economy"? Who uses the term "fascist economy"? See what I'm saying? If you want to state the argument from some "libertarians" that economic fascism exists in the U.S. or whatever, feel free. My only request is that you don't conflate it with the definition of economic fascism (aka fascist political economy). RJII 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC

I aint got time. This whole article is trivial. Make it NPOV like you said you would or I nominate it for AfD and change my vote. Tick Tock. jucifer 03:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll note that libertarians use the term. You could have done that yourself. Why you think that's important is beyond me. RJII 04:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

TwoVersions discussion

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)

Please Firebug take a step back

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)

Issues at dispute

First of all, the very existence of the article is disputed. Secondly, the first paragraph implies that "economic fascism" actually exists, rather than being a term made up by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That violates NPOV. Firebug 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed your big box because there is no precedence or agreement on such action as far as I can tell. I give you the NPOV problem... I voted delete so it's not like I am really trying to defend the article I'm just trying to show that the box is not appropriate just because a contentious article was VfDed. Many articles have two competing versions... that doesn't mean that it gets a box completely discreditting the article. gren グレン 15:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice of you to follow the standard procedure for putting up an NPOV tag, after being reprimanded. Don't stick a tag up on an article without saying exactly why on the talk page, so we can fix the problem --if there is one.RJII 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So you say, "the very existence of the article is disputed."? Well, the fact that you were able to put an NPOV on the article, and recognize that you did do that, tells me that you acknowledge that the article exists. So, your disputing that article exists is simply not credible. On the other hand, if you're trying to say that you're disputing whether the article should exist then that's not a proper tag to indicate that. As far as I know, there is no such tag.

Now, you say that the first paragraph mplies that "economic fascism" actually exists, rather than being a term made up by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies." Where do you see it saying that it exists? It says it was a system in the 20's and 30's that was found in fascist regimes. It says it DID exist, not that it exists. But, I can maybe change a word or two to indicate that more explicitly. No problem. I'm not sure if such system exists anywhere in the world today. I don't think it exists in the U.S., for example, --I think that's pretty obvious. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it exists today somewhere in the world. I'd have to research the economic systems in various countries. Regardless, that's not really my call to make and I certainly have no intent to make an assertion one way or the in the article. For example, in the capitalism article, it is not asserted that capitalism exists anywhere. It's simply defined and described abstractly. Anyway, back to your dispute. I'll change "originated in the 1920's..." to "FOUND in the 1920's..." just to be sure we're talking about something that doesn't necessarily exists today, but existed in the past. Let me know if my edits resolve what you think to be a problem so we can remove the tag. RJII 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I made changes just to be sure that the article is not interpreted as saying that economic fascism "exists." Do you agree that it doesn't say it exists? No response will indicate that you're no longer claiming this and we can removed the NPOV banner. RJII 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to throw my two cents in. My problem with this article is that economic fascism IS NOT the economic system of fascist nations. It is a neologism coined by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That's the problem with the article: it's not about what it says it's about. You're misdefining the term. The content of this article should be merged with corporatism and/or fascism, and the article itself should be replaced with one that describes economic fascism as the term is actually used. TomTheHand 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If economic fascism is not the economic system of fascist nations then what is? Corporativism is one part of the system, so that article just doesn't cover the system as a whole. There is also mercantilism, protectionism, limited private property rights for the means of production, etc. You say "the article itself should be replaced with one that describes economic fascism as the term is actually used." Well, how is it used then? The way I've seen it being used is to describe the economic systems under Mussolini and Hitler ..and according to some that oppose such a system, the system under FDR (at least the overall proposed system which the Supreme Court didn't allow to be established). If you see the term used in another way, please let us know. And, I think you're too hung up on the "term." "Political economy of fascism" is another term for the same thing --maybe it was coined by laissez-faire advocates too? I don't know. RJII 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just said what it is: a term used by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies! TomTheHand 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the article a bit. Also, since some of you guys are so hung up libertarianism, I'll shortly be writing about the libertarian argument that economic fascism was tried in the US under Rooselvelt before the Supreme Court struck the corporativist aspects of the New Deal down as unconstitutional, etc, etc. (unless someone else wants to get to it first). RJII 06:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Firebug's claim is that "economic fascism" is a libertarian neologism. If that claim is correct, the article should probably be deleted -- but should certainly note that "fact". Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. It's used by others besides "libertarians." It's used by socialists as well. And it was used before libertarians used it. Anyway, it's already noted in the article that laissez-faire advocates "popularized" the term (as if that has any importance). Others call economic fascism by other names, such as "fascist political economy." RJII 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave the factual matter open -- except that your last sentence suggests that the correct name of the article is "fascist political economy", with a note that some people use "economic fascism" to refer to it. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because "economic fascism" is the more common terminology. "Fascist political economy" would be closer to a neologism. RJII 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The most common usage of the term "economic fascism" is by laissez-faire advocates to refer to government intervention. Do a Google search and look at how many pages are actually about the economic system of fascist regimes, and how many of them are criticisms of government intervention in the economies of democratic countries. Fascism is already quite long, and I can see your point that corporatism is too limited, so I understand your arguments against merging. However, could this article be renamed? TomTheHand 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should the fact that most of those who use the term "economic fascism" oppose economic fascism mean the article should be renamed? Don't you realize that most of the people who call it by other names oppose it as well? Is it any surprise that those who speak out against fascist economics are laissez-faire advocates? I think your statement is wrong that "the most common usage of the term "economic fascism" is by laissez-faire advocates to refer to government intervention." In the texts I've seen they're not referring to mere intervention, but a systemic type of intervention --a system that is comparable to what you saw under Mussolini, etc. I don't know of any laissez-faire advocate that would call the mere act of intervention, economic fascism. RJII 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that there's a problem because most people who use the term "economic fascism" oppose it. I said that most people who use it are complaining about government intervention in the economies of democratic nations. It is most commonly used by laissez faire advocates for shock value, not by people actually discussing the economic system of fascist nations. It should be given a title that is not so tied up in libertarian alarmist nonsense. Your article would not be weakened and your work would not be lost. Please compromise on this. TomTheHand 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that the term is "not [used] by people actually discussing the economic system of fascist nations." Again, I think you're wrong. Look at the external links in the article. They're clearly using the term to label the economic system of fascist nations. THEN, the're proceeding to argue that the New Deal (as inititially envisioned) was the implementation of that system in the U.S. Where do you see the mere act of economic intervention being called economic fascism? I haven't seen that. If you've got a source, great. RJII 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The article looks like original research to me. First, you say that "economic fascism" is something the fascist nations had in common, rather than more correctly saying it's what a handful of libertarian theorists say they had in common. Then you go on to suggest strongly that government regulation of private ownership is "fascism". There's a clear line between "fascism" as a political (and economic) system and "fascism" as an epithet used by some for government control that they do not like. Personally, if Ronald Reagan calls me a fascist, I consider that a compliment ;-) James James 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Original research? Hardly. I've never seen so much sourced material in such a small article. "Economic fascism" is not being used as an epithet. And, it's not just "libertarian theorists" that discuss economic fascism. The article spans all sorts of political pursuasions, including socialists. This claim by some of you that it's a "libertarian" term is just not backed up by the facts. Even if that were true, so what? The term is notable regardless, and it's the most common term to label the economic system found in fascist italy and germany. RJII 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing an article is not the whole of preventing it from being original research, RJII. Using sourced material to draw your own conclusions is also OR. I'm afraid it mostly is "libertarian theorists" that discuss "economic fascism", rather than "the economic systems of '30s-'40s Germany and Italy". You should note that they are not commonly called that at all, and neither were they the same system. The term is generally used by those who want to claim that all government intervention in the economy beyond a certain point is "fascist", even when the end and mechanisms of that intervention are different. You'd do well to reflect that in the article, and to leave any further theorising to the theorists abovementioned. James James 01:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebug: 3RR

I hoped you would be reasonable. You realise that you have now reverted 3 times. jucifer 16:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Renaming the article?

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)

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)

RFC

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC

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)

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." [2]). Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RJII, you've done some weird thing that has created your title as a POV fork of "economics of fascism". You can see that there's no consensus for your view that "fascist economy" is an actual thing, because there was no particular system that the fascist nations shared. Whatever you've done, please work on the article titled economics of fascism, which is more NPOV, and arrange to have your fork deleted. James James 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is clearly not a consensus, as was evidenced in the vote: [3] 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)

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)

Every editor except you on this page has taken issue with your title and the way you talk about "economic fascism". Your view has absolutely no support. You can't appeal to the deletion vote. That has no part of the discussion here, since it was a discussion about keeping this article, not whether it could be moved or not, or whether it was substantially correct or not.

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)

I see a clear consensus on this page to redirect the article and rewrite it to more correctly discuss the subject.James James 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. You really should check your glasses then. RJII 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Consensus

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

Starting the article "Economic fascism is..." must continue "...a term used by some libertarians to describe..." "Economic systems in Fascist States is a seperate issue. Take care. You know very well that "economic fascism" is only a term used by some libertarian thinkers to group together the economic systems of fascist states. --jucifer

First of all, the very existence of the article is disputed. Secondly, the first paragraph implies that "economic fascism" actually exists, rather than being a term made up by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That violates NPOV. --Firebug

My problem with this article is that economic fascism IS NOT the economic system of fascist nations. It is a neologism coined by libertarians to smear non-laissez faire economies. That's the problem with the article: it's not about what it says it's about. You're misdefining the term. The content of this article should be merged with corporatism and/or fascism, and the article itself should be replaced with one that describes economic fascism as the term is actually used. TomTheHand

'm willing to leave the factual matter open -- except that your last sentence suggests that the correct name of the article is "fascist political economy", with a note that some people use "economic fascism" to refer to it. Arthur Rubin

t should be renamed somthing like Correlations in Fascist Economies, and expanded as such.--sansvoix

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

Agreed. Also agree with page move from economic fascism to economics of fascism Rd232

That's every editor to edit this page except for you. All disagree with your view. All want the article renamed or recast. James James 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

I've quoted Jucifer's view. In his/her own words. James James 05:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)