![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is biased not to include socialism as a related ideology. In every form of socialism except anarcho-socialism, the state owns the means of production i.e. has a monopoly on all goods and services. Typically, there will be one corporation, bureau, etc. in charge of a particular product/service. In fascism, the state controls the means of production but often allows corporations (even competitors) to continue in existence. However, the state forces corporations and unions into product/service specific cartels. These cartels of course must comply with the wishes of the state or lose their government granted privilege. In socialism, the state is the de jure owner of the means of production. In fascism, the state is the de facto owner of the means of production. ( JoeCarson 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC))
I suggest you read the introductory paragraph of socialism. State ownership of the means of production is a defining aspect of most socialist economic systems. ( JoeCarson 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
“ | The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy. (Benito Mussolini) | ” |
“ | While nearly everywhere else private property was bearing the major burdens and suffering from the hardest blows of the depression, in Italy, thanks to the actions of this Fascist government, private property not only has been saved, but has also been strengthened. (the Fascist Minister of Agriculture in 1934) | ” |
“ | The Corporate State considers private enterprise in the sphere of production to be the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the Nation. (the Italian Charter of Labour, introduced by the fascists) | ” |
“ | Fascism maintains that in the ordinary run of events economic liberty serves the social purposes best; that it is profitable to entrust to individual initiative the task of economic development both as to production and as to distribution; that in the economic world individual ambition is the most effective means for obtaining the best social results with the least effort. (Alfredo Rocco) | ” |
Fascists made statements stressing their supposed differences with socialists, but these were like the statements of a child defining himself in opposition to his parents. Those statements may or may not be true, but either way, the child will end up very much like the parent.
Mussolini may have made statements against government intervention in the economy, but the reality of the situation was far different. Fascists allow the profit motive to shape the market by allowing some businesses to remain in private hands, but they exercise strict control over those businesses. "You can do what you want as long as I agree with it." Is not very far from "Do what I say."
The members of the economics subset "fascism" have far greater than 50% overlap with the members of the economic subset "socialism". ( JoeCarson 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
Must we have a revert war over this?
Hello, User:JoeCarson. I presume you are aware that you have repeated the same revert 3 times in less than 24 hours. FYI, here are two excerpts from the WP policy page WP:3RR:
A word to the wise: some might describe your repeated reverts as "skating on thin ice". In a nutshell, your continuing arguments on this point simply are not going to carry the day — not when every other editor who has weighed in strongly disagrees, and with solid explanations. So if you persist in inserting the same edit, you will assuredly meet the description of "disruptive editing".
And, by the way, in light of your adamant insistence on adding "socialism", it's clearly no accident that you consistently choose to place it at the head of the list (rather than unobtrusively at the end or in the middle) — which indicates to me that the purpose is to give additional emphasis to the purported link between socialism and fascism.
Can we please call off this pointless argument, which is only wasting everybody's time? (including your own) Cgingold 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Come up with a sound argument for not including socialism on the list of related ideologies and I will not include it. As it stands, no one has addressed the economic similarities. BTW, I inserted socialism at the beginning because it was a tad bit easier to place it there. Though, I concede that if we are to order them by degree of overlap, it certainly belongs after corporatism and authoritarianism. ( JoeCarson 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
I will abide by Wikipedia's policy of no more than 3 reverts in 24hrs, I confess I was ignorant of this. However, I cannot in good conscience allow the fascism page to go on without any mention of its similarities with socialism. Wikipedia is not here to foist the views of some on gullible readers, it is here to present accurate information in an unbiased format. I believe we were both editing this page the last time I suggested this and so it did not process correctly. You appear to be opposed to this inclusion because you do not want to associate what you believe are the negative qualities of fascism with what you percieve as the positive qualities of socialism. Can we agree to include an explanation of where the two overlap, in this page or a linked page? ( JoeCarson 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
Here is approximately what I propose to add to the Definitions section with regards to corporatist socialism.
"There are similarities between the fascist and socialist economic systems. Chief among these is a high degree of state control over the means of production, and outright state ownership of many major industries. Where the two economic systems differ is in the relatively larger degree of freedom given to companies in a fascist economy. Companies in fascist economies remain nominally private and are free to seek profits if their actions are in accord with state policy. Furthermore, fascist governments often allow the existence of multiple competing commpanies in a single industry, whereas centrally controlled socialist economies typically have a single state monopoly in each industry. Despite the economic similarities, the social policies of socialist and fascist governments are quite disparate. Whereas socialism seeks egalitarianism, fascists often embrace social darwinism as the basis for inequalities in society."
Feel free to revise this and give your input. If there are no objections, I will add this in no less than 48hrs.
(
JoeCarson
23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
However, this argument could apply to many different systems (New Deal US, 1970s UK, for example), and the rest of the para invalidates the passage "high degree of state control over the means of production, and outright state ownership of many major industries." by "fascist governments often allow the existence of multiple competing commpanies in a single industry" this is contradictory is it not? This just seems like a bit of a shoehorn comparison-of doubtful usefulness. I don't think it should go in. Felix-felix 09:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to propose any changes for the paragraph, "There are similarities between the fascist and socialist ..." yet. for now, i just want to know what the source is. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please indent your comments to avoid confusion. You say this article is not about those other systems, but it is not about socialism weither. If we compare fascism to one other system, we should compare it to all other systems that bear a comparison. I did not make the other points you refer to. But I did raise this question, to which you have not yet responded: I am not going to propose any changes for the paragraph, "There are similarities between the fascist and socialist ..." yet. for now, i just want to know what the source is. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There are strong connections between fascism and socialism. One prominent scholar of fascism, Zeev Sternhell, sees fascism as the successor of anti-Marxist socialism: "Essentially socialist in origin, this fascism rejected Marxism, on the one hand, in the name of a modernized, national, and authoritarian socialism, and liberal democracy and bourgeois society on the other, in the first place in the name of social justice, but above all in the name of efficiency and technical and economic progress, which were the two aims that had to be given priority if the community was to survive the crisis that had come upon the world." and "As the successor of national, anti-Marxist socialism, fascism constituted an extremely violent attempt to return to the social body its unity, integrity, and totality." (from his essay "Fascist Ideology"). -- Vision Thing -- 13:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we have scholarly sources who have written "on why fascism is like liberal parlimentary democracy? Or capitalism? Or feudalism? Or slave societies? Or penguin colonies?" If so, we should include their views. In the meantime, we do have Sternhell, which is a verifiable source, and we should include his views in the article. In accordance with our NPOV policy, we should not include his views as "the truth" but as the views of one scholar, and it would help to add some background about this scholar e.g. Israeli political scientist, specialist on French fin de siecle politics, or French intellectual history, or whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some other quotes from Zeev Sternhell (specifically, from his book The Birth of Fascist Ideology, Princeton University Press, 1994):
So, according to Sternhell, fascism endorses "an economy determined by the laws of the market". Perhaps we should include that in the article as well. -- Nikodemos 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
( JoeCarson 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
There are numerous authors claiming that [statist] socialism and fascism are fundamentally opposed. There are also numerous authors, including fascists, who claim that fascism supports free markets and capitalism. I have quoted some of those authors above. I may quote others if you wish. The fact is that the relationship between fascism and socialism may be considered disputed at best. The introduction of this article should only make non-controversial statements. The statement that fascism "combines elements of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, corporatism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism" is not controversial. Therefore it belongs in the intro. The statement that fascism is similar to state socialism is controversial, therefore it does not belong in the intro. -- Nikodemos 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a statistic showing that the majority of scholars do not consider the economic systems of state socialism and fascism to have significant overlap? Also, fascists may have spoken in favor of the market and this should be included in the article. However, their actions in this regard deserve as much coverage as their words. Again, I suggest removing any reference to ideology in this article. As it stands, this article is not neutral. ( JoeCarson 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC))
Again, where is the data supporting the assertion that only a minority of scholars believe the economics of fascism and socialism do no overlap significantly? The intro should be changed to read "Fascism is a radical political ideology whose philosophical roots are a matter of controversy. Refer to to Fascism and ideology. ( JoeCarson 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC))
Nikodemos, you may not realize this but you are proposing to violate two core policies. First, "we are forced to rely on the practical policies of fascist governments in order to infer the key elements of fascist ideology" - wrong. To do so would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Second, there is no need for scholars to agree on a definition of fascist ideology for their work to be included in this article. On the contrary, our WP:NPOV policy encourages us to include multiple points of view. If there are two, three, five, or ten major different scholarly views of fascist ideology, from reliable, verifiable sources, we should put them into this article. If there is a debate among scholars about fascist ideology, we should provide an account of that debate in this article. But under no circumstances are we to provide our own generalization or synthesis account of fascist ideology. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Nikodemos, I am glad I misunderstood you concerning the first point - thank you for explaining. As to the second: the introduction should introduce the article as a whole. If the definition of fascism is itself a matter of controversy, the introduction should say so. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is biased not to include socialism as a related ideology. In every form of socialism except anarcho-socialism, the state owns the means of production i.e. has a monopoly on all goods and services. Typically, there will be one corporation, bureau, etc. in charge of a particular product/service. In fascism, the state controls the means of production but often allows corporations (even competitors) to continue in existence. However, the state forces corporations and unions into product/service specific cartels. These cartels of course must comply with the wishes of the state or lose their government granted privilege. In socialism, the state is the de jure owner of the means of production. In fascism, the state is the de facto owner of the means of production. ( JoeCarson 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC))
I suggest you read the introductory paragraph of socialism. State ownership of the means of production is a defining aspect of most socialist economic systems. ( JoeCarson 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
“ | The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy. (Benito Mussolini) | ” |
“ | While nearly everywhere else private property was bearing the major burdens and suffering from the hardest blows of the depression, in Italy, thanks to the actions of this Fascist government, private property not only has been saved, but has also been strengthened. (the Fascist Minister of Agriculture in 1934) | ” |
“ | The Corporate State considers private enterprise in the sphere of production to be the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the Nation. (the Italian Charter of Labour, introduced by the fascists) | ” |
“ | Fascism maintains that in the ordinary run of events economic liberty serves the social purposes best; that it is profitable to entrust to individual initiative the task of economic development both as to production and as to distribution; that in the economic world individual ambition is the most effective means for obtaining the best social results with the least effort. (Alfredo Rocco) | ” |
Fascists made statements stressing their supposed differences with socialists, but these were like the statements of a child defining himself in opposition to his parents. Those statements may or may not be true, but either way, the child will end up very much like the parent.
Mussolini may have made statements against government intervention in the economy, but the reality of the situation was far different. Fascists allow the profit motive to shape the market by allowing some businesses to remain in private hands, but they exercise strict control over those businesses. "You can do what you want as long as I agree with it." Is not very far from "Do what I say."
The members of the economics subset "fascism" have far greater than 50% overlap with the members of the economic subset "socialism". ( JoeCarson 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
Must we have a revert war over this?
Hello, User:JoeCarson. I presume you are aware that you have repeated the same revert 3 times in less than 24 hours. FYI, here are two excerpts from the WP policy page WP:3RR:
A word to the wise: some might describe your repeated reverts as "skating on thin ice". In a nutshell, your continuing arguments on this point simply are not going to carry the day — not when every other editor who has weighed in strongly disagrees, and with solid explanations. So if you persist in inserting the same edit, you will assuredly meet the description of "disruptive editing".
And, by the way, in light of your adamant insistence on adding "socialism", it's clearly no accident that you consistently choose to place it at the head of the list (rather than unobtrusively at the end or in the middle) — which indicates to me that the purpose is to give additional emphasis to the purported link between socialism and fascism.
Can we please call off this pointless argument, which is only wasting everybody's time? (including your own) Cgingold 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Come up with a sound argument for not including socialism on the list of related ideologies and I will not include it. As it stands, no one has addressed the economic similarities. BTW, I inserted socialism at the beginning because it was a tad bit easier to place it there. Though, I concede that if we are to order them by degree of overlap, it certainly belongs after corporatism and authoritarianism. ( JoeCarson 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
I will abide by Wikipedia's policy of no more than 3 reverts in 24hrs, I confess I was ignorant of this. However, I cannot in good conscience allow the fascism page to go on without any mention of its similarities with socialism. Wikipedia is not here to foist the views of some on gullible readers, it is here to present accurate information in an unbiased format. I believe we were both editing this page the last time I suggested this and so it did not process correctly. You appear to be opposed to this inclusion because you do not want to associate what you believe are the negative qualities of fascism with what you percieve as the positive qualities of socialism. Can we agree to include an explanation of where the two overlap, in this page or a linked page? ( JoeCarson 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
Here is approximately what I propose to add to the Definitions section with regards to corporatist socialism.
"There are similarities between the fascist and socialist economic systems. Chief among these is a high degree of state control over the means of production, and outright state ownership of many major industries. Where the two economic systems differ is in the relatively larger degree of freedom given to companies in a fascist economy. Companies in fascist economies remain nominally private and are free to seek profits if their actions are in accord with state policy. Furthermore, fascist governments often allow the existence of multiple competing commpanies in a single industry, whereas centrally controlled socialist economies typically have a single state monopoly in each industry. Despite the economic similarities, the social policies of socialist and fascist governments are quite disparate. Whereas socialism seeks egalitarianism, fascists often embrace social darwinism as the basis for inequalities in society."
Feel free to revise this and give your input. If there are no objections, I will add this in no less than 48hrs.
(
JoeCarson
23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
However, this argument could apply to many different systems (New Deal US, 1970s UK, for example), and the rest of the para invalidates the passage "high degree of state control over the means of production, and outright state ownership of many major industries." by "fascist governments often allow the existence of multiple competing commpanies in a single industry" this is contradictory is it not? This just seems like a bit of a shoehorn comparison-of doubtful usefulness. I don't think it should go in. Felix-felix 09:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to propose any changes for the paragraph, "There are similarities between the fascist and socialist ..." yet. for now, i just want to know what the source is. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please indent your comments to avoid confusion. You say this article is not about those other systems, but it is not about socialism weither. If we compare fascism to one other system, we should compare it to all other systems that bear a comparison. I did not make the other points you refer to. But I did raise this question, to which you have not yet responded: I am not going to propose any changes for the paragraph, "There are similarities between the fascist and socialist ..." yet. for now, i just want to know what the source is. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There are strong connections between fascism and socialism. One prominent scholar of fascism, Zeev Sternhell, sees fascism as the successor of anti-Marxist socialism: "Essentially socialist in origin, this fascism rejected Marxism, on the one hand, in the name of a modernized, national, and authoritarian socialism, and liberal democracy and bourgeois society on the other, in the first place in the name of social justice, but above all in the name of efficiency and technical and economic progress, which were the two aims that had to be given priority if the community was to survive the crisis that had come upon the world." and "As the successor of national, anti-Marxist socialism, fascism constituted an extremely violent attempt to return to the social body its unity, integrity, and totality." (from his essay "Fascist Ideology"). -- Vision Thing -- 13:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we have scholarly sources who have written "on why fascism is like liberal parlimentary democracy? Or capitalism? Or feudalism? Or slave societies? Or penguin colonies?" If so, we should include their views. In the meantime, we do have Sternhell, which is a verifiable source, and we should include his views in the article. In accordance with our NPOV policy, we should not include his views as "the truth" but as the views of one scholar, and it would help to add some background about this scholar e.g. Israeli political scientist, specialist on French fin de siecle politics, or French intellectual history, or whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some other quotes from Zeev Sternhell (specifically, from his book The Birth of Fascist Ideology, Princeton University Press, 1994):
So, according to Sternhell, fascism endorses "an economy determined by the laws of the market". Perhaps we should include that in the article as well. -- Nikodemos 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
( JoeCarson 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
There are numerous authors claiming that [statist] socialism and fascism are fundamentally opposed. There are also numerous authors, including fascists, who claim that fascism supports free markets and capitalism. I have quoted some of those authors above. I may quote others if you wish. The fact is that the relationship between fascism and socialism may be considered disputed at best. The introduction of this article should only make non-controversial statements. The statement that fascism "combines elements of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, corporatism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism" is not controversial. Therefore it belongs in the intro. The statement that fascism is similar to state socialism is controversial, therefore it does not belong in the intro. -- Nikodemos 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a statistic showing that the majority of scholars do not consider the economic systems of state socialism and fascism to have significant overlap? Also, fascists may have spoken in favor of the market and this should be included in the article. However, their actions in this regard deserve as much coverage as their words. Again, I suggest removing any reference to ideology in this article. As it stands, this article is not neutral. ( JoeCarson 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC))
Again, where is the data supporting the assertion that only a minority of scholars believe the economics of fascism and socialism do no overlap significantly? The intro should be changed to read "Fascism is a radical political ideology whose philosophical roots are a matter of controversy. Refer to to Fascism and ideology. ( JoeCarson 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC))
Nikodemos, you may not realize this but you are proposing to violate two core policies. First, "we are forced to rely on the practical policies of fascist governments in order to infer the key elements of fascist ideology" - wrong. To do so would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Second, there is no need for scholars to agree on a definition of fascist ideology for their work to be included in this article. On the contrary, our WP:NPOV policy encourages us to include multiple points of view. If there are two, three, five, or ten major different scholarly views of fascist ideology, from reliable, verifiable sources, we should put them into this article. If there is a debate among scholars about fascist ideology, we should provide an account of that debate in this article. But under no circumstances are we to provide our own generalization or synthesis account of fascist ideology. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Nikodemos, I am glad I misunderstood you concerning the first point - thank you for explaining. As to the second: the introduction should introduce the article as a whole. If the definition of fascism is itself a matter of controversy, the introduction should say so. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)