Talk:Dirigisme

Voluntarism
Is "Voluntarism" supposed to be volontarisme? -- Beland 00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. I had the same thought, in fact, also that I've never seen either dirigisme or dirigiste ever used in English without surrounding quotations indicating that it is a foreign, i.e. French, term. Ditto for dirigism and dirigist spellings: never seen those at all.


 * I don't find any of these variants -- with or without the terminal "e" -- in my Webster's American Dictionary. They are in the OED Online, however: most of the examples there use surrounding quotations, but there are some which do not -- for both terminal "e" and non. Also "dirigistic".


 * So I guess we're stuck with the French term, in our ecumenical English / Américain. OK with me, as the phenomenon it describes is pretty common and I can't think of a better English term.


 * --Kessler 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

American System
Advocates of the American System have been adding links to that article in a number of unreleated articles. The three elements of the AS were high tariffs, infrastructure improvemtns, and a national bank. I see only one of those three elements in this article. Can proponents of the link please provide a noteworthy source who connects them? Thanks, -Will Beback 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be committed to a reductionist approach in trying to understand these topics. The American System is not defined by components x, y, and z, but rather by an overarching idea that generates those components. If you look at the intro to Dirigisme, you will find that it says that "Dirigisme... is an economic term designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence.


 * While the term has been applied occasionally to centrally planned economies, where the government effectively controls production and allocation of resources (in particular, to certain socialist economies where the national government owns the means of production), it originally had neither of these meanings when applied to France, and generally designates a mainly capitalist economy with a strong economic participation by government."


 * This introduction could just as easily describe the American System, and it also makes clear that the term Dirigism may be used to describe economies other than that of France, answering an objection that you have made in other locations. Because of the obvious kinship of the ideas, it is perfectly legitimate to direct readers from one article to the other; the American System (economics) article references Colbert as one of the inspirations for the American System. And this article also refers readers to Mixed Economy, for similarly legitimate reasons. --  HK   16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the American System about a planned economy. Communism and command economies would be a closer comparison. High tariffs and road-building are not at all the same as a planned economy. Again, do you have any legtitimate source for this linkage, or is it your own original research? -Will Beback 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Will Beback, this user has also been trying to spread "Left Gatekeeper" terms in articles of well-known leftists to spread Larouchite POV.--Jersey Devil 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dirigism was DeGaulle's economic plan to revitalize France. It's emphasis was quite similiar to American System as HK describes above. Are the two exact? No. Are they similiar and warrant SEE ALSO's? Yes. Just as someone reading about Communism would want to read further about the similiar socialism or democratic socialism. It is perfectly legitimate to provide additional links for the reader to understand similiar systems in history. Will Beback, would you not agree that the two systems are similiar enough to warrant linking? Mercantilism which predates both is also similiar in its philosophy, though there are differences. Adding American System to unrelated articles is wrong and was not done. Adding it to articles of similiar substance is right for educational purposes. Jersey Devil, you've been warned about violating the decorum of Wikipedia by bringing up unrelated material and 'opinion' on your part about HK. It is also inappropriate to bring another dispute relating to the Gatekeeper page and vote thereof, here. Please stop. We get nowhere if you post as you've done. Let us be reasonable here. --Northmeister 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If Dirigisme and the American System are similar then I'm sure that a reliable source has made the comparison previously. I can't find such a comparison. On the face of it, they do not appear similar, as I've said above. One concerns a planned economy and state-owned enterprises, the other proposes high tariffs, road-building, and a national bank. We agree that adding links to AS to unrelated articles is wrong, and I wish it would stop. Regarding HK's editing actions, if he is doing the same thing here as on other articles then it is a problem, but discussions of editors should be held on other pages such as user talk pages. -Will Beback 21:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dirigisme is not a planned economy where the means of production are owned by the government, it is rather directed action toward national goals of economic expansion and technological achievement, quite similiar in how the American System encouraged American enterprise through its national banking, internal improvement to infrastructure, and tariff policies. DeGaulle did not want to embrace a command economy where the means of production were directly in the governments hands as in socialism or communism, thus Dirigisme. That is not to say some enterprises were not nationalized, but many were after DeGaulle.  That said, not only should the reader be directed toward the American System (as similiar but not the same), but towards Mercantilism (in the same light), Mixed Economy (in the same light), Communism (as another economy belief), Laisse Faire (as the alternative).  This is essentially an economic article about a policy DeGaulle embraced resulting from same gene's pool as American System (forgive my comparison), whereas Colbert of France etc. were the Adam's of that; that is the same as socialism belonging to the same gene pool or strain as Communism, whose Adam was Marxism.  When a reader reads about Dirigisme for whatever purpose they may well wish to know of similiar systems that stimulated the national economy through various devices, such as the American System or the system of Japan today.  We agree they are not the same.  We agree that the American System should not be linked to a non-associated article. --Northmeister 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me the source that links the two concepts and I'll cheerfully re-add the link myself. Since you assert there is a strong connection there must be someone who has noticed this similarity. -Will Beback 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your overreaching here. I did the See Also over to include different economic systems, those similiar and different. Look them over and offer any suggestions on inclusion or deduction. The goal is to provide the reader with see also links for further economic study. --Northmeister 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If that was the goal I'd have thought that those other links would have been added in the first place. -Will Beback 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That should be the goal of any article (which is what I meant), to offer further links within or without wikipedia for further study that is related. I agree, the other links should of been added earlier and maybe you can offer improvement to them if you think I missed any proper links. --Northmeister 23:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil Reverting
Jersey Devil, why did you revert without discussion here? I added the links and asked for discussion so we can work together on this. Why did you revert the links? Explain your reasoning? --Northmeister 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Jersey Devil has decided not to discuss his reversion, I consider it an act of vandalism and have reverted his reversion for that reason. All I ask is a discussion on why he does not approve my latest edit and to join us in a civil discourse here. --Northmeister 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not falsely claim vandalism on page history summaries. In Wikipedia we have a very specific definition for the term vandalism (See Here). Thank you. As to why I reverted it is because it is POV pushing for a term used by Larouche which you and the other user are trying to promote which has nothing to do with French economics.--Jersey Devil 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What in this is POV? To link to similiar sites is POV? Your arguments don't make any sense. Once again I am asking you to stop linking this historic American term to LaRouche alone. You are stalking (see here) and vandalising a page as well as harassing me (see here). Stop the VANDALISM (see here) do not disrupt this page to make a point and honor the policy of assuming good faith towards me (see here). Lastly I ask that you do not revert a page until consensus is reached by those editing at any given time as to what should be done. Simply reverting in that manner you have done considering your history is VANDALISM and not helpful to improving this article. --Northmeister 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of Links
The See Also links restored as were. The Japanese Miracle, German System, American System, all were economic systems with similar traits to Dirigisme. Mercantilism and Colbertism are the roots of all of these. These roots are "Government Intervention" rather than "Hands Off" or "Total Control" which sum up the other two philosophical wings of Economics each of which have many branches. The systems are not the same but are similar and warrant inclusion on that merit. We are trying to put together an Encylopedia of fact so that the reader can gather information. Linking to the above mentioned economic systems gives the reader the ability to study similar systems and compare and contrast them. --Northmeister 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Northmeister's edit, and his rationale for it. If other editors disagree, I propose that the next step be a RfC, rather than edit warring. --  HK   07:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Order: what it is not before what it is.
Confused of England writes: This is a nice entry, but two points confuse me. Firstly, in the opening who do we explain what it is not before we explain what it is. Uses of Dirigisme that relate to socialistic planned economies seems pretty rare in my reading: I think it should start by saying that it's a style of leadership, and in particular of government leadership, associated with the French elite. Secondly, it seems a little narrow to locate it in economics only. Dirigisme, to me, is rooted deeply in the meritocratic model as much as in any French affection for autarky. It's about ENA-archs and others leaders knowing best, about the confidence in plannification and grand projects, about the one best way... all of this seems tightly bound to me. Any thoughts? --Duncan 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is unclear to me why the article is not called by the English name, Dirigism. Dirigism is most widely used as an economic term, connoting the opposite of another French expression, Laissez-faire. Maybe it is only just that both terms retain their French names. --  HK   22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism
As to Dirgisme relation to Fascism, the source material is misleading and falsely applied. I see no reference within this source for the additional material comparing Dirgisme with the extensive system of Fascism that was Corporatist in nature and had nothing to do with Dirgisme. But, that is moot and my opinion. Please provide exact quote from that material which I do not find. Thank You. --Northmeister 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In assuming Good Faith, I did delete the entire section in haste - that being I've reworked it to better represent what I've read. If the original editor or any others wish to enter into discussion, I am here for a short period and am willing to discuss the wording. Thanks. --Northmeister 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Northmeister, the first citation was the only reference to fascism. It was added by another user, and, as I had not read the book, I let his statement ("Economic dirigisme has been described as an inherent aspect of fascist economies") and the subsequent citation (An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe by Ivan Berend) stand.  However, the citations that followed were present to justify the text that followed, and the following text was present to explicitly identify the fact that, even if political economists choose to identify dirigisme as an element of Fascism, there are many, many other political and economic philosophies incorporated within Fascism.  French Dirigisme may not have existed before WWII, but people like Berend are going to argue that the mechanics of dirigisme were employed by other nations, in various ways, prior to WWII.  As a result, I would argue that the text you deleted ("the Berend argument", followed by my qualification of fascism) is worth keeping as long as you incorporate text which will prevent the section from being misread.  Your thoughts? --(Ptah, the El Daoud 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Yes I agree. What do you think of my present reworking? --Northmeister 04:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC) -I just took a look at your cutting of the one sentence - that looks ok to me. Although Franco's Spain was not rooted in racism like Hitler's Reich I agree with your revision and reason. --Northmeister 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. And you are right to suggest that Franco's policies were certainly more egalitarian than Hitler's, but his actions against the Basque in the 30's were explicitly racist.  As for the section itself, I have no other qualms. Peace. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 05:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

And here we are again. An editor deleted the section again, saying, "i think you're a little confused. all it says is that it has nothing to do with fascism. so it shouldn't really be included". The citation in question goes to a chapter titled "ECONOMIC DIRIGISME IN AUTHORITARIAN-FASCIST REGIMES". Obviously, the author is saying that there was economic dirigisme in fascist regimes (and others). The text is viewable on Amazon.com.   Will Beback    talk    21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You've placed one author's views as significant. You're placing undue weight on a very marginal view - if that is his view at all. It seems to me he is just using the term as an adjective. It's rather misleading. Look, I'll try and fill out the article some more. Pilusi3 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you no longer arguing that the book doesn't make the assertion, and now arguing that this is excessive given to one source? If so, that's possible but the material in the article is short and the book devotes an entire chapter to the issue. The book is published by Cambridge University Press and the author is a UCLA professor of history, so it's presumably a highly reliable source.    Will Beback    talk    23:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you haven't read the source. You're just making inferences from the title of a chapter. From what's available, it's not clear at all what he is asserting. And even if he is, it is still a marginal and quite queer view, given the reasons outlined above (e.g., anachronistic, given there was no such word or concept as the French dirigisme when these fascist regimes existed). Pilusi3 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you've deleted it a third time, with yet another justification: "after reviewing the source material, it is not clear that the author is using the term in which the editor/s intends." What do you mean by that?   Will Beback    talk    23:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that the term was coined later doesn't mean it can't apply to earlier periods. The view is clearly attributed to the author, who is reasonably expert in the field. If there's nothing else I'll restore the material.   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're just guessing that "the view is clearly attributed to the author". You have no way of knowing that. You also are not in a position to determine whether this view is mainstream. Restoring this material places this very bizarre element into a tiny argument. The casual reader will assume that dirigisme and fascism have some kind of relation - which is clearly not the case. Pilusi3 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The text said: "Economic dirigisme has been described as an inherent aspect of fascist economies by one author, Ivan T. Berend in his book An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe." That is very clear attribution. According to whom is this a "bizarre argument"? If someone with credentials equal to Berend's we could post those too, but there's no question that Berend's book is a reliable source.    Will Beback    talk    00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was a "bizarre argument", I said it was a bizarre element to include in a very short article on a very specific topic. If you type in "dirigisme" into books.google.com and scholar.google.com, you will find countless books, articles, and arguments dealing with the issue. To include one, which happens the make the very unusual and unique connection to 20th century fascism, would be placing undue weight on that view - whether the source is reliable or not (I never said it wasn't). Pilusi3 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think there is more to be said about the topic and can find sources for it then go ahead and add it. But that's not a reason to delete well-sourced material.   Will Beback    talk    00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Pilusi3 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy does not say that material should be deleted outright.
 * Here's another source: "Dirigisme was central to both fascist and Communist systems."
 * Here's another, which says dirigisme was part of Spanish fascism under Franco.
 * This one says that advocates of dirigisme were "triumphant" in fascist Vichy France.
 * Here an economist is quoted as saying that postwar dirigisme in Italy was similar to the fascist economic control.
 * Here someone says: "The economic dirigisme introduced under fascism and nazism is, without doubt, still alive today."
 * This author considers dirisigme to be a "hallmark" of fascism comparable.
 * In fact it looks like this is not a minority view but rather a common view.   Will Beback    talk    01:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, then include all those arguments, sources, present it as an important and mainstream view - and see how the article looks. Pilusi3 (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's start be restoring the material which was already there on the topic.   Will Beback    talk    01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because that would be in breach of NPOV, as outlined above... Pilusi3 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this material by a scholar, which apparently reflects a commonly held view, would violate NPOV? It kind of looks like you're grasping at straws here, looking for any excuse to keep this material out of the article.    Will Beback    talk    01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, please, go ahead, include this "commonly held view" and reference it to all the sources you found above. I am encouraging you to do so. Pilusi3 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
The following clause asserting that dirigisme is responsible for post-war growth is a possible NPOV violation:

It resulted in an unprecedented economic and demographic growth...

First, this assertion is inconsistent with the more nuanced discussion in the In France section.

Second, the Trente glorieuse period from the rubble following WWII up to the 1973 Oil Crisis is cherry-picked to make a point. A slight adjustment, say 1953-1983, would tell a different story.

Third, growth in some non-dirigisme economies, e.g. Hong Kong, exceeded that of dirigisme economies during the same period.

Finally, causal effect with demographic growth is questionable. Other factors, e.g. moonlit strolls on the Pont Neuf, arguably had a greater effect on the birth rate.

The remedy is to remove or qualify the statement (“Proponents argue that...”). FredLoney (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)