Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - default to keep JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


close notes - NOTE: These are only the notes of the closing administrator both so that he could keep his thoughts together when closing this RFA and so that users can understand his thoughts while closing


  • It has been determined that this does not qualify as a speedy deletion since the content currently in the article at the time of the AFD nom is not the same as content at the time it was originally deleted
  • User:Ognit Ice's vote discounted, as a suspected sock JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Mihnea Tudoreanu has been campaigning for votes which while not explicity forbidden is discourged as a matter of practice
  • 17 keep (including merge and redirect votes), 12 delete
    • (of keep votes) 11 just keep, 5 merge/redirect



Economic fascism

[edit]

The article was deleted before, only to be ressurected again. It is unencyclopedic and has no hope of ever being anything other than a stub or a description of the views held by some libertarians on the issue of state intervention in the economy. The definition of fascism is highly disputed; the existence of a separate economic system called "economic fascism" is not supported by the majority of economists and historians. The idea that state intervention in the economy is inherently fascist would be seen as utterly absurd by all but a handful of authors, all of which are economic libertarians. The term "economic fascism" does not appear in any encyclopedic sources. At this point, the article does not contain any information which is not already present in fascism, and I believe that that article is the appropriate location for discussing fascist economic policies and the various interpretations given to them. A separate article for one particular such interpretation is not only unneeded, but positively harmful given the controversy and POV surrounding anything related to fascism. Delete. Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to voters from author of article: The statement above: "The idea that state intervention in the economy is inherently fascist would be seen as utter absurd..." is misleading. The article does not say that. It clearly says it's an overall economic system including a "planned economy" and "heavy coordination of the means of production, among other characteristics. Mere economic intervention is not "inherently fascist." The article says no such thing nor gives any such impression (This message left 5 days after voting started, unfortunately). RJII 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Administrators I'd just like to note that Minhea Tudoreanu is going around spreading false information in campaigning to get this article deleted. He's writing to various editors' talk pages the following: "There is an ongoing attempt to define state intervention in the economy as inherently fascist through the creation of an article entitled economic fascism..." This is false. The article clearly says that economic fascism includes a "planned economy" and says the means of production are "heavily coordinated"; it obviously does not say that economic fascism is mere intervention. Of course people are going to vote to delete if that's what it said. *I* would vote to delete in that case or edit the article to say otherwise. Tudoreanu placed this message in the Talk pages of users such as user:El_C, user:Sesel, and user:Ruy Lopez who then voted to delete. Administrators please take note of this in your analysis. RJII 05:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the users receiving a notice from Minhea Tudoreanu, I reject the claim that he has sent me false information. Even if he were sending false information, the point would be moot. I respect Minhea Tudoreanu; but I do not vote based on how he tells me to vote. I am certain that the same is the case with the other editors receiving the notices... Since RJII has metioned Minhea, I will use this thread as a chance to offer him a belated thanks for the message. I would not have seen this AfD had it not been for his note on my talk page. I hope that he continues to send me similar notices so that I can better stay informed of important discussions on Wikipedia. 172 09:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So that explains your confusion over what the article is about. In order to give this some semblance of being fair. I'm going to have to leave a few notices on the Talk pages of others. But, unlike Tudoreanu, I'm not going to misrepresent the article. I'm just going to let them know a vote is going on. This won't fix the damage that has been done by Tudoreanu, because obviously he has misled several, but it may help alleviate the injustice. Administrators: Please give me time to do this. RJII 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text of G4 reads "[b]efore deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject." I checked the content and it's not substantially the same as far as I can tell, therefore we need this AfD for it. gren グレン 08:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for verifying this. Peyna 08:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been quite a coincidence, as I wasn't even aware that the article had existed and deleted before I created it. RJII 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Economic fascism is a notable term that deserves its own article. It has over 11,000 hits on a Google search. Scholoarly papers are written about it, use the term, etc. Minhea Tudoreany, who put this article up for deleteion says "the idea that state intervention in the economy is inherently fascist would be seen as utterly absurd by all but a handful of authors, all of which are economic libertarians." Well, the article says nothing of the sort so I don't know where he's getting that. RJII 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (author of the article)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fascism, agree with Capitalistroadster. An article on economics under fascism, if there were enough material to justify a separate article, should be entitled economics under fascism or something similar. "Economic fascism" implies fascism through economics. Almost all those google hits for "economic fascism" are from economic libertarians. TomTheHand 17:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does the fact that "Almost all those google hits for "economic fascism" are from economic libertarians" have to do with anything? The fact is, the term is used and is notable. Anyway, most economists today are economic libertarians so it's no surprise the most usages of the term are by laissez-faire advocates. It's POV of you to want to get rid of the article because laissez-faire advocates use the term. Totally unjustified. RJII 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Most economists today are economic libertarians"? That is a bold - and, I would argue, ridiculous - claim. But that's not the point here. If only (or mostly) laissez-faire advocates use a term, then that term should clearly be presented as such. I would not object to an article entitled Libertarian perspectives on fascism that included all the information currently found in Economic fascism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have been more clear. When I did the Google search, I primarily saw paranoid pages talking about how the United States was practicing economic fascism, or was on the way down the path to doing so, which is unrelated to what you've written about. I think what you've written is good, and non-POV, but I think it's redundant and should be merged with and redirected to fascism. TomTheHand 19:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That still doesn't negate the fact that the concept and term is noteable in and of itself. If someone wants to know what economic fascism is, after coming across it, they should be able to go direct to an article on it instead of having to wade through the desultory generalized fascism article. RJII 20:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fascism: Fascism, we should remember, was Mussolini's economic philosophy before it was his political philosophy, and the article on fascism talks about the economics of the government. There is no need for the doublet. Geogre 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I completely disagree with a redirect. As I am sure a number of other students have done, I twice was set essay topics in relation to "Economic Fascism", neither of which had anything to do with "Fascism". Some people can link the two: most don't. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've also seen professors use the term "economic fascism" in syllabuses, study notes, etc. RJII 18:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, let us base an article on hearsay. [/sarcasm] On a more serious note, it has been my experience that whenever the term "economic fascism" is used neutrally in academic circles, it tends to be used as a synonym for "the economic policies of fascist governments". It is not considered a separate economic system. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, "economic fascism" is "a synonym for the economic policies of fascist governments." And that's what the article says it is. You're complaint is very strange indeed. RJII 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a need because there is a notable term to label the economic of fascism: "economic fascism." RJII 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, the entry should stay and it shouldn't be redirected. Economic Fascism is not the same as Fascism and deserves its own entry. This is something i've come across in my own college studies.Ognit Ice 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-max rspct 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look up capitalism, buddy. Merriam-Webster (unabridged) defines it as: "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." If these things are determined by "state control" then it's not capitalism. Get a clue. RJII 21:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try and directly refute what I just said..I reckon that anybody with a good knowledge of working capitalism (not just capitalism "the ideal" or free market "the ideal") would agree that there is no government on earth that has not greatly intervened in it's economy, national bank, infrastructure whether though subsidies, legislation or creation of markets. And by the way.. this is for an encyclopedia article not a thin dictionary entry -max rspct 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The definition said "mainly in a free market." It doesn't have to be an absolutely free market to be capitalism. But it has to be overwhelmingly free. If intervention is very significant but some private decision still exists, then it's not capitalism, but a mixed economy. If it's a mainly interventionist economy, then it's a planned economy. Get your terms straight man. What you are calling capitalism is not capitalism. RJII 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just listen to yourself! -max rspct
Even the US Department of State says the U.S. is a mixed economy. [3])
The distinction between capitalism and mixed economies is not in dispute here. What is in dispute is your claim that any mixed economy with sufficient state intervention is necessarily fascist. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where the hell are you getting this? The article does not claim a mixed economy is a fascist economy. A mixed economy is not a fascist economy. Economic fascism is an overwhelmingy planned economy ..not a mixed economy. I don't understand where you're coming from. RJII 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the agenda of people who talk about "economic fascism," but I can't deny that it's an actual concept which is fairly widely used. The article should be kept and improved with some NPOV. Factitious 04:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essentially, my argument is that economic fascism is not so much a concept as a smear term. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're very confused. "Fascism" is a smear term, yet there's an article on fascism. "Economic fascism" has the term "fascism" so you're probably associating it with a smear term, but it's not. It's just the name of the economic system that has existed in fascist nations. RJII 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fascism after POV cleanup as a section titled "Economic aspects of Fascism". If article kept as a separate entity, I would suggest Move to a title such as this: "Corporatism", "Fascist economies", "Fascist economics", or ""Economic aspects of Fascism". "Economic fascism" seems (1) poorly formed -- we don't say "Economic captitalism/socialism", we say "Capitalist/socialist economics", and (2) sounds inflammatory. Herostratus 07:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After POV cleanup"? Where is the POV? And move it from economic fascism to "fascist economics"? "Economic fascism has like 11,000 Google hits, and "fascist economics" has just over 200. I'm afraid to ask what kind of reasoning is behind that. And the reason we don't say "economic capitalism" or "economic socialism" is because capitalism and socialism are themselves economic systems. "Fascism" is not itself an economic system; it's more encompassing than that. The economic system that's found in fascist political systems is called "economic fascism." And, "economic fascism" sounds inflammatory? Pure nonsense. RJII 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The economic system that's found in fascist political systems is not unique enough to be called anything. "Economic fascism" makes as much sense as "Economic monarchism", "Economic republicanism" or "Economic parliamentarianism". And your POV lies in the way you define economic fascism, which is at best a hopelessly vague term and at worst nothing more than propaganda by association (associating certain economic policies with fascism in order to make them look bad). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the article as it stands is not NPOV, the question here is could there be a NPOV article with this title and there could. It seems to be a notable term with 11k hits on google and its details could be hashed out. jucifer 00:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for deletion is the existence of a separate economic system called "economic fascism" is not supported by the majority of economists and historians. So what! I agree that the theory is crazy but that dosn't mean it can't have an article describing it!! Let the article say that economist think it is shit. jucifer 00:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What is there to be afraid of? I curious about the claim that it's not NPOV though. I tried my best to write an NPOV article. I even mentioned an author that promotes economic fascism. RJII 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete In and of itself the term "economic fascism" is a non-encyclopedic neologism. Yes, the term gets 11,000 hits on Google; but that tells us nothing more than the fact that the term gets 11,000 hits on Google. A Google search is a terrible indicator of anything, especially encyclopedic standards. Just about any non-encyclopedic neologism will get literally thousands of Google hits. For example, compare the number of hits generated by "economic fascism" to the number of hits generated by "American fascism," another unencyclopedic ahistorical term used in polemics. "American fascism" gets 78,000 hits. [5] (BTW, if a misguided user were ever to start an article on "American fascism," I suspect that some of the "keep" voters here would join me in supporting an AfD on such an entry.) Nevertheless, the term "economic fascism" has a place in a certain context on Wikipedia; a self-standing entry, though, is defiantly not the proper context. Most references to the term online are inspired by a fairly well-known essay among libertarian circles (and even some academic circles that have done some interesting comparative work on the notion of a 'welfare-warfare state' and its relation to the political economies of the European fascist regimes-- though academics never use the term themselves) by Thomas DiLorenzo entitled "Economic Fascism." [6] RJII's work would thus have a proper place in the Thomas J. DiLorenzo article under a section summarizing his essay "Economic Fascism." Since the term "economic fascism" is so strongly associated with DiLorenzo, the Wikipedia page "economic fascism" can even be redirected to the DiLorenzo article. 172 00:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for you in the most part and although I haven't voted here my reason for not voting delete is that in an encyclopedia where we have an article for Slanted and Enchanted (non-notable album) why not have an article for economic fascism which seems to be more notable than many of our album pages. I suppose the issue with this is that it skews all of the work on economics to a POV rant when every little epithet gets an article. So, because of those views I can only be neutral. Your reasoning was pretty sound, but, when our notability standards are so low is there reason not to create this page? I really don't know the answer. gren グレン 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point in that there have been occasions with little political epithets creeping into Wikipedia and getting their own article. But I consider that trend on Wikipedia quite unfortunate and worrisome overall. If we can't spot all the problems, the best we can do is not allow the ones that do get listed on AfD to get by, and draw a line in the sand for encyclopedic standards whenever we get the chance. IMO this entry is somewhat more problematic than most epithets that get listed on AfD for a reason that is quite subtle. The term "Economic Fascism: is most notable as an essay by DiLorenzo. As an essay, "Economic Fascism" is a proper noun and thus capitalized and put in quotations. However, the article subject to the AfD at the moment is an article on "economic fascism" in the lowercase, which gives the impression that the term is not primarily notable as an essay (referred to in uppercases) but rather as an accepted historical term not in need of attribution. In this sense, giving the impression that a neologism is an established historical term is subtle, but can have a very powerful propaganda effect. IMO, AfD voters should be especially sensitive when it comes to spotting neologisms, as they may not be too noticeable at first glance, despite being as egregious a violation of NPOV as any. 172 02:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A "propaganda effect"? Some of you guys think a Wikipedia article can change the world. Lighten up on the paranoia and the censorship. RJII 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns about propaganda on Wikipedia have nothing to do with changing the world but rather applying Wikipeida's own content policies, particularly NPOV. The users who upload the propaganda are the ones seemingly interested in changing the world. 172 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gren, it's not that it's a non-notable term, it's that it's not really a term at all. Economic fascism is more of a smear than a scholarly term with a defined and accepted meaning. The article as it exists is terribly vague. Nearly all sources that talk about economics under fascist governments talk about Corporatism, which was the principal economic theory developed by Italian fascists and proto-fascists. This article should redirect straight to Corporatism. —thames 14:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was deleted before, I think it should be deleted again. I think this is the best option, however, if a strong consensus was decided to redirect it to Fascism instead of deleting it, I would probably go along with that. The reasons for this are not only articulated above, but were articulated the last time this was deleted. One among the many no-brainer reasons mentioned above already - try finding an entry for this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta or any other encyclopedia. This clearly does not belong here, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to store political tracts of fringe groups. Ruy Lopez 02:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many articles on Wikipedia have titles that are not in Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia is a little more liberal than that. If it can have an article called gay bathhouse it can certainly have one a little more intellectually important than that on economic fascism. RJII 02:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one is saying that the notion of "economic fascism" is intellectually unimportant. The term is neologism, and as such has its place in the Thomas DiLorenzo article, where his essay can be summarized, but not as a self-standing entry. 172 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • DiLorenzo is not the only person that has talked about economic fascism. What are you talking about it's a "neologism"? It's not a neologism. What if the article was called "fascist economics"?; would that be a neologism? You'd probably say "no" unless DiLorenzo titled his article "fascist economics," in which case you would be claiming it was a neologism. There has to be some way to refer to the economics practiced in fascist nations. "Economic fascism" seems to be the most common way of referring to it. It's not a "neologism." RJII 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • DiLorenzo is the most notable. He is not the only one using the term in the sense that other libertarians have been influenced by his work and now use the term themselves. The term is a neologism in the sense that it is use of a new term based on historically established terms to describe the patters that DiLorenzo is attempting to sketch. There's nothing wrong with that. A neologism can be innovative while unencyclopedic at the same time. As for "fascist economics," the term "economics" refers to the study of the economy. For now there is no school of thought among economists describing itself as "fascist." For now the term "fascist economics" only seems to have meaning in the lexicon of the Lyndon LaRouche cult, which published an article entitled "Arnie Rolls Out the Coming Fascist Economics in California." [7] 172 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's still very strange what you're saying. As far back as the 1930's and 40's people were describing the economic system that was particular to fascist nations as being distinct from others systems. Whether you want to call an article "economic fascism," "fascist economics," "economic systems in fascist economies," it's all the same thing. "Economic fascism" is just the most common language used to refer to summation of the economic characteristics found in fascist nations. RJII 03:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If we clearly define our terms what I am saying will not be difficult to grasp. In the interwar era, "Fascism" referred to an ideological and political movement with often-changing and often-nebulous goals and tenants, particularly on economic policy. Today among historians, the argument that you just asserted-- that there was an economic system particular to fascist nations and distinct from other systems-- is subject to a considerable amount of debate. Circumscribing the topic of fascist economic thought is quite difficult because, depending on when at where you look, a different picture may emerge. Even more unclear to historians is the question concerning whether or not we can even speak of a 'fascist economic system,' a topic subject to a considerable amount of debate. DiLorenzo says 'yes' from a libertarian perspective, and popularized the term "economic fascism." The problem for Wikipedia is that turning his neologism "economic fascism" into an article implicitly means that Wikipedia is accepting his POV on a controversial debate, which, of course, goes against the Wikipedia principle of NPOV. BTW, there are many articles where you can work on the issues that interest you here. The libertarian perspective on "economic fascism" can be described in articles related to DiLorenzo. Details on the economies of Germany and Italy in the 1930 and 1940s can be found in the specialized entries dealing with the economic histories of those two countries. 172 04:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • DiLorenzo is not the only person who talks about economic practices peculiar to fascist nations. Sure, there may be other articles where one can talk about it, but I prefer a single article devoted to the issue. You don't. Hopefully, there is no consensus to delete the article so it can be further edited and improved. RJII 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Indeed he is not. But DiLorenzo is the main writer associated with the neologism "economic fascism" in the discourse on the question of economic practices particular to fascist nations from the perspective adoped in the article now up for AfD. Given the NPOV policy, the place for a discussion of the question of "economic practices particular to fascist nations" cannot be under a title that endorses DiLorenzo's POV, which is far from being universally accepted, but rather in more general entry on fascism or economic history. 172 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What are you talking about? The article doesn't even refer to DiLorenzo. All the quotes and definitions are from others. DiLorenzo is an external link. You can't consider that link as part of the article! That's ludicrous. What is the POV expressed in the article?? There is none. DiLorenzo's POV is not expressed in the article. RJII 17:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If the article does not refer to DiLorenzo, it is not citing its sources-- all the more reason to delete it. The idea was his; so you should start working on better attributing your writing on Wikipedia. 172 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The article is sourced. DiLorenzo is not the only person that uses that term. This shows that you have not even read the article that you're voting against. Talk about irresponsibility. RJII 07:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You're spinning me around in circles here. I already pointed out that I had never made the claim that DiLorenzo is the only person that uses the term. The term has to be attributed to him because he was the one who popularized it, leading others in libertarian circles to start using it themselves. 172 13:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing here that can't be covered (in more appropriate, scholarly-accepted NPOV terms) in the dozen or so articles listed in a previous user's vote. —Sesel 05:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exactly, scholarly-accepted NPOV terms is what should be sought (is this taught as a term, as such, in academia?). This article and/in relation to the title is both non-npov (on both counts, see Firebug for the latter) and original research (again, on both counts). El_C 13:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it that those who are are saying that the article is not NPOV can't point to what is POV about it? And, El_C, you just claimed it original research. Where is the original research? These claims are bogus. RJII 15:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one questions that Fascism had (or has) a strong economic component, and that certainly ought to be addressed in the Fascism article. The article in question, however, makes "economic fascism" sound mor elike an epithet free-market purists sling at people they oppose. I don't think that warrants its own article. The article on the New Deal can discuss debates among Americans at the time as to whether Roosevelt was saving capitalism, or inventing his own form of communism or fascism, drawing on contemporary sources. Beyond that, the Fascism and Corporatism articles should provide full discussions of their economic dimensions. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're having the same confusion as a few others here. You're reading some external links and taking them as being part of the content of the article. The article does not mention the New Deal and does not even so much as speculate that the U.S. has experienced economic fascism. The article is patently NPOV. RJII 18:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it has no reason to exist. Any material it addresses should be in the fascism article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it shouldn't. The economics of fascism deserves its own article. Someone who wants to see information on the fascist economies should be able to go directly to an article. RJII 18:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. First, the Fascism article should have a section on "Fascist economics" (not "economic fascism). Second, if or when the article becomes too long, that section should be made into its own article, with a summary and link in the Fascism article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you have a problem with it being called "economic fascism" but not "fascist economics"? That's ludicrous! What the hell difference make what it's called? "Economic fascism" is just common terminology to refer to it. Someone above said "the term "fascist economics" only seems to have meaning in the lexicon of the Lyndon LaRouche cult." So, he's probably going to complain about that terminology. Get over it people. RJII 18:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What "the hell difference [does it] make what it's called?" The difference has to do with what is the noun and what is the adjective. In English, meaning is produced largely through different parts of speech; the rules governing these parts of speech involve English sentence structure. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the noun-adjective form behind "economic fascism" goes with the convention. There is economic liberalism, economic individualism, and economic fascism. RJII 19:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, not with Wikipedia's conventions-- maybe with certain libertarian authors who propose such a taxonomy, but not Wikipedia's, given the WP:NPOV policy. 172 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So if the term is used by laissez-faire types you want to censor it. Talk about POV! RJII 07:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I am not advocating censorship but rather proper attribution of sources. In this sense we are respecting the rights of Thomas J. DiLorenzo's to his intellectual property (such as his essay "Economic Fascism"). The "laissez-faire types" like defending private property, right? Now, once the source of the ideas underlying the contents of the article on VfD is duly noted, the content does not have to be "censored" but rather moved to an entry related to DiLorenzo. There are places where his work can be summarized on Wikipedia. However, pretending that a neologism, which he popularized in his essays, is encyclopedic, somehow transcending the need to attribute his ideas, is not the proper way to go about detailing libertarian thought on Wikipedia. 172 08:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Intellectual property? No one owns the term "economic fascism." The term is is pretty widespread use. And, it's not a "neologism." DiLorenzo was using the term back in the early 90's. This is almost 2006, man. Economic fascism is the economic system that typically exists in fascist regimes. RJII 15:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • According to DiLorenzo, "economic fascism" was the system that you are describing in the article. He popularized the term, and indeed others in libertarian circles have been influenced by his work. Still, his work has not come anywhere close to reaching universal acceptance in academic literature on the economic history of the 1930s and 1940s. Actually, I'm not even aware that it has had any influence at all outside libertarian circles. Others find it much more difficult to speak of such a clear-cut relation. Thus, the term "fascist" in the strict NPOV sense refers to ideology/political affiliation and regime (under fascist rule). When using the term in a less restrictive sense, in this case using it to refer to an 'economic system,' there must be a reference to the research making the connection. 172 01:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What are you talking about? DiLorenzo might have "popularized the term" but he didn't invent economic fascism and didn't invent the so-called "term." Get it through your head, man --the article is not about DiLorenzo or nor has anything to do with his personal philosophy. It has to do with the economic system present in fascist nations. Whether DiLorenzo popularized the term "economic fascism" to label this system is not materially important, as the term is a pretty common term today. Hence, it's the proper term to title on article on the economic system present in fascist nations. If this article is deleted, I'll create another article with same information but with a different title (unfortunately, and ironically, with a less notable title). The title is not as important as the content. You have a problem with the title of the article because DiLorenzo, who you apparently have a beef with, uses that term. Your complaints are absolutely insane! RJII 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • On AfD the title is not less important than the content. The title, actually, is everything. Please review Slrubenstein's comments on the significance of the meanings of words and language. 172 08:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep. We also need an article on American fascism. -- JJay 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your opinion, but keep in mind the article is not about "American fascism," but economic fascism in general. Whether the U.S. economic system is the same as the system in the historical fascist nations is another matter. RJII 04:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hey its all good, just get the information out there. My remark was directed at 172 who I believe mentioned the American fascism idea somewhere in the Everest of words above. I'm changing to Strong Keep now because I feel kind of lonely down here. -- JJay 04:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, "get the information out there." RJII 04:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks you can quote me on that. But seriously, if these terms exist, like cultural fascism, we should explain them. This is an encyclopedia. That is our mission. What is everyone so afraid of? And don't bore me with that inherently POV crap. -- JJay 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Corporatism. If you examine the References listed, and do a Google Scholar search on "economic fascism", nearly every source that comes up is explicitly talking about the corporatist form of organization. This economic theory was expounded by the Italian Fascists as an economic third way between capitalism and socialism, was implemented in Italy, and implemented in part (in parallel to a more general war economy) in Germany. "Economic fascism" itself is not a distinct term or concept, and is not used by reputable scholars to specifically denote a unique form of economic organization. Redirecting it into the Fascism article is not as accurate as redirecting it to Corporatism, since corporatism was the economic theory implemented by European fascist states. —thames 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corporativism is just one aspect, albeit a major aspect, of economic fascism. Other elements of the system that are often said to be included are protectionism, mercantilism, and wage and price controls. Economic fascism is a set of characteristics --pointing to just one aspect, such as corporativism, just doesn't cover it. The article covers a few aspects of economic fascism, including corporativism, and it's going to be expanded to cover more than it does now. RJII 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree with Dan T., above. I also should say that this isn't a very well written article, but that simply means it could use some work. Which is what we're all here for, isn't it? Shouldn't be redirected into anything, because this specific subject deserves its own treatment. --Christofurio 17:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment > so what about Trust-busting and the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission? And from what the 'keep' voters are saying I guess you would call the tenure of Theodore Roosevelt economic fascism? What about the birth of the National Health Service? or the New Deal. Anybody who calls the New deal economic Fascism is not being serious about wikipedia.... take a look at the main proponent's user page > User:RJII. - max rspct 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what your point is or even whether you meant to address me rather than RJ, who can speak for himself. As for your example, I think it is worthy of note that the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission has its own article and isn't a merge/redirect into Trust-busting. Likewise, there's no good reason to make economic fascism a merger/redirect into fascism or corporatism or anything more generic than itself. --Christofurio 21:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made up term with no academic credibility. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it has no academic credibility then why are academics using it? The guy who supposedly "popularized" the so-called "term" is a professor of economics at Loyola at Baltimore. Richard Ebeling uses it who is a professor of economics at Hillsdale. Jutta Schmitt uses it, who is a political science academic at University de Los Andes in Venezuela. And, so on. In other words, it has academic credibility. Morever, academic credibility is not even a prerequistite for an article. Does dogging have academic credibility? Surely there are numerous academics using that term. RJII 19:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a "handful of authors" and "doesn't appear in any encyclopedic sources" standard would disqualify hundreds of wikipedia articles. We have articles about single books or movies with only one author, and that also don't appear in any encyclopedias. The only remaining objections appears to be that the word fascism may attract controversy and that it may be already covered in the fascism article. Why is it covered in the latter if it is unencyclopedic? Why wasn't the former raised as an objection to the fascism article itself? --Silverback 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_fascism_2&oldid=1079909508"