Talk:Economics of fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wrong song, bad translation[edit]

The official anthem of the NSDAP, "Horst Wessel" promised "to live long slavery" (German: Die Knechtschaft dauert nur mehr kurze Zeit). However, since the destruction of the issues of exploitation has long been staged in Germany, in particular, and German Social Democrats, on the level of ordinary members of the NSDAP there was not unanimity on this issue and often their views on economic policy were diametrically opposed.

That is simply not true and it is not even quoting the right song. Nowhere in the HWL Anthem does it say "long live slavery" or anything similar.

Some funny ideas on Italian fascism[edit]

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).



Some funny ideas on Italian fascism[edit]

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).

Political Economy of Italy[edit]

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)

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)

Schmitt source[edit]

I went ahead and deleted the Schmitt source. As far as I know it's not published. It appears to simply be statements [1] on a personal website, hosted by "Franz and Jutta". [2] 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) I also deleted the Anthony Gregory source. It too appears to be a self-published website thing. [3] RJII 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow in the course of this deleting the latter footnotes became unmoored from the numeric sequence. --Christofurio 02:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

social Darwinism[edit]

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)


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)

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)

Hitler's political beliefs drew heavily upon Social Darwinism[edit]

This statement is WP:OR, because it is referenced to a primary source. I actually doubt Hitler was influenced by "Social Darwinism" proper. I think the term one is looking for is Eugenics. Intangible 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that statement, like the entire paragraph, is supported by the source I gave a few sentences down (Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", 1985, p. 76). I can look in the book and find the exact quote if you wish. I also remember having another book that talks about the subject of social darwinism and Hitler. I'll look there too. Eugenics requires that you intentionally select "superior" breeding partners and persuade or force them to have many children; social darwinism requires that you create an environment where "superior" individuals select each other and have many children. Hitler supported both. -- Nikodemos 16:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Errh, the original meaning of Social Darwinism is simply that one looks at society from a biological perspective. There is nothing in that that asks people to have many children, or any notion of "survial of the fittest." Social Darwinism as you define it, has little to with Darwin himself or Spencer. Hodgson writes:

Intangible 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that quote. "Social Darwinism" is a misnomer, and gives an impression of intellectual legitimacy to a bunch of social theories that are complete hogwash. Not only that, but Social Darwinism is unrelated to Darwin. Unfortunately, here on wikipedia we cannot change the names of things... so we'll have to keep calling it Social Darwinism because that's what scholarly sources call it. And on that note, here are some quotes from my sources:

-- Nikodemos 01:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting quotes. But taken together they seems to be inconsistent. For example, in Mein Kampf, Hitler proposed that land-holdings should be nationalised (although this was latter removed from the Nazi programme). It seems to be me that Hitler's "commitment to economic competition and private property" derived much more from pragmatism than anything else.
Yes, fascism was, above all else, pragmatic. It is not right-wing, it is not left-wing, it is a dictatorship of the middle. Generally speaking, most fascists had left-wing rhetoric while campaigning, and turned sharply towards the right while in power. One thing fascist movements had in common was an appeal to the people to gain power, followed by an appeal to the preexisting elites to consolidate and keep it. Scientz 01:40 PM, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Have you thought about the split of this article btw? Intangible 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No reason to split this article. --Cberlet 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive contribution. I think I will just have to file an AFD then. Intangible 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

General characteristics of fascist economies[edit]

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)

Look, I don't agree with the section, and find the claims tiresonme and part of the baggage of marginal right-wing POV and superficial analysis that infects articles relating to fascism on Wikipedia. The material, however, is properly cited, and should not simply be deleted. Discuss please.--Cberlet 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


I would appreciate if you didn't remove the Hitler quote about socialism. Fascism is basically socialist. Yes some private property is allowed in the cases where it is not nationalized but it is controlled and guided for the good of society. Billy Ego 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.--Cberlet 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascism is basically socialist. Billy Ego 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That is completely false. Socialism is in favor of egalitarianism and fascism is opposed. Socialism believes in the well being of the individual. While fascism makes the individual a servent to the state. Fascism is for the benefit of the state and socialism is for the benefit of the individual. --Jfrascencio 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The state is just the vehicle for serving the common good. In facism everyone serves the state who in turn serves the people by making sure that resources are distributed in an equitable manner. It makes sure that profiteers and usurers aren't exploiting the people. Serving the state is serving the people. The people are the state. Nothing is outside the state. Billy Ego 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The state under fascism is like a huge company with hierarhies. The individual is not serving the people, but the interests of the state as determined by a dictator. Fascism is known for economic productivity that exceeds even free market capitalism. While socialism is an egalitarianist system where the people are receiving state welfare, they receive housing, they receive hand-outs. Socialism/Communism is known for having weaker economic productivity, because there is no motivation.
"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State" -Benito Mussolini
The state under fascism does not exist to serve the individual. Just like in a factory, the workers serve the will of those higher up in the factory, not the other way around. Under fascism there is no equality.
There is free market capitalism where the individual serves the wealthy and those who own the means of production and the means to provide services.
Then, there is fascism where the state and state subservient private individuals owns the means of production and the means to provide services for the benefit of the state and its interests.
Then, there is communism where the people own the means of production and the means to provide services. There are systems where various collectives or groups (such as worker's councils), or even the government is the owner, but this is always done on behalf of the people. It is like a factory where the factory is owned by someone, but the owner allows people to use the factory's resources for the benefit of all or the individual.
Then there is socialism which is described as a transition from a capitalist to a communist economy by Marx. --Jfrascencio 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That vote was on changing the title of Nazism not on the economics of fascism. Any editor who interpreted it as such had flawed reasoning. The quote should stay because it is relevant to the section.JoeCarson 11:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Apart from nationalizations of some industries, private property was allowed but property rights and private intitiative were contingent upon service to the state." If apart from limited nationalizaton, private property rights were allowed, then in what sense can they be seen as contingent upon service to the state?
  2. I think the article also needs to stress fascism's anti-labour agenda more. There is a mention in one place that it was anti-union, while later it says Mussolini upheld the right to strike. In reality, in the Black Years before coming to power, in opposition, Italian fascism's main activity was violently breaking up strikes (as with the proto-fascist pistoleros of pre-Franco Spain) - and in power, Mussolini may have given lip service to the right to strike, but did he allow it to be carried out?
Both these examples evidence the discrepancy between fascism's occassional public use of socialistic rhetoric, while their actual practice was rather different. Consequently, stressing the former rather than the latter skews teh article - presumably to make a point. BobFromBrockley 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first point. (The second point I have no opinion/knowledge on)--DorisH 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Material cut a few days ago[edit]

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.[1] As a result, fascists considered the economy to be of little importance and did not have clear economic views. [2]

  1. ^ William G. Welk, Fascist Economic Policy, Harvard University Press, 1938. pp. 38-39
  2. ^ Henry A. Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", 1985, pp. 61-68

--DorisH 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. BobFromBrockley 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Question dudes Is this sort of reference permitted? How is it verified? Cloveoil 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In an amazing building called a "Library," which contains information printed on paper.--Cberlet 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Toland citation[edit]

Citation number 48 is wrong; it lists page number 306 for a quote that occurs on page 224 -Scientz 12:01 pm, 3 Apr 2007 (EDT)

I added a lot of text on the Spanish-part of the page. Its all taken out of memory of a book i read last year, but I dont remember its name. On some parts of what I wrote im a little uncertain. Was the mining-strikes taking place in Andalucia? And where did the street-battle beetween the radical fascists and the carlists take place? And why did it happen? I think the book said that the fascists attacked the carlists during a memorial-ceremony for the king, but its a long time since I read it, so I dont remember.

Franco's Spain[edit]

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:


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." [4]


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)

        • A new concern for this section, and just my first to post, would be that this section does not have any citations, and much of it is false. Hopefully later I can add more details on this, but I am calling here for valid citations. Also, something in particular which bothers me is the sentence ending with "José Antonio Primo de Rivera, which was one of Franco's chief supporters during his bid for power." This is an utter lie. José Antonio did not support Franco, in fact he said that any falangista who supports Franco in the uprising would not be a falangista anymore. Whoever wrote this is completely incorrect, and I would like to have it stricken. At a later time, I would like to re-write the entire section, but this introductory sentence is the worst, and it makes me nauseous. Permission to change this? Mvbdlr (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)mvbdlr 3/38/10

Removed section from intro.[edit]

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)