Talk:Economics of fascism

Wrong song, bad translation
''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
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).
 * The unsourced figures on welfare spending quoted above seem wrong. Tytire (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Some funny ideas on Italian fascism
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
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
I went ahead and deleted the Schmitt source. As far as I know it's not published. It appears to simply be statements on a personal website, hosted by "Franz and Jutta". 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. 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
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)

"Social darwinism" is a problematic term that should largely be avoided except on the article dealing with the subject itself. But, regardless of the labeling itself, it's arguable that Hitler's political views were not exactly "socially darwinistic". In speeches he said things like, "our social welfare system is so much more than just charity. Because we do not say to the rich people: Please, give something to the poor. Instead we say: German people, help yourself! Everyone must help, whether they are rich or poor. Everyone must have the belief that there’s always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and I want to help this person as a folk-comrade. [...] When you sacrifice for your folk-community, then you can walk with your head held up high." This is in stark contrast to social darwinism, which is much more an eye for an eye, none of this everyone helping one another stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.102.136.202 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Split
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
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:Overall, the label of “Social Darwinism” is unhelpful and misleading. In its established context it serves the purpose of tolerating “Darwinism” in biology but entirely excluding it from social science. It lumps together and dismisses a whole host of varied and important developments in the 1870–1914 period that in some way developed or maintained links between biology and the social sciences, including the careful use of biological analogies in the analysis of social evolution. We should be critical of racist, sexist and imperialist ideologies, but these emanate neither from the act of linking biology with the social sciences, nor from the principles of Darwinism...It would be better if the use as a descriptive term of the highly ambiguous and imperfectly grounded phrase “Social Darwinism” were discontinued. It would be clearer and more effective if authors criticized more directly the readily identifiable and less ambiguous ideological ills of racism, sexism, imperialism or eugenics. 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: [Hitler's] commitment to economic competition and private property derived not from expediency but rather from his fanatically held Social Darwinist beliefs about the nature of mankind and human society. [source: Henry A. Turner, German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Oxford University Press, 1985. page 76. ] In his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), published in 1926, Hitler drew on the ideas of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest to provide a quasi-scientific justification for the need for racial purity, which became a core doctrine of the Nazi movement. [source: David S. Mason, Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1989: liberty, equality, solidarity, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. page 88.] -- 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
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)

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

--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 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Toland citation
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
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:

DELETED FROM INTRO TO THIS SECTION:
 * 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."

ALSO DELETED, FARTHER DOWN:
 * 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.
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economics of fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511190923/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html to http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economics of fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426102617/http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2003/Falk_FascistEmpire.html to http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2003/Falk_FascistEmpire.html
 * Added tag to http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_13_2_forgetting.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501145020/http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/buchheim-041020.pdf to http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/buchheim-041020.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_13_2_forgetting.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Socialism vs. Marxism
This edit uses a cite to Mussolini's “My Autobiography with The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism” to argue that he supported Socialism. First, we need to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources, but second, that's a flat misrepresentation of the source. While he acknowledges using it in his climb to power, Mussolini is extremely blunt in his contempt for socialism. Here are some quotes from that book: Nothing in there remotely implies that he "supported the economics of socialism", nor does it justify ignoring the numerous secondary sources we have exhaustively detailing the fact that Fascism was a reactionary movement that opposed international socialism. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The victory of the Socialists was a danger, not so much because of the fact itself as because of the phenomenal retreat to their holes of all the weak and the incapables which followed the day after the Socialist victory. That victory crushed the Liberals and the Democrats. For some time a low furtive literature of propaganda had spread stories about disquieting episodes in the defeated German and Austrian countries. This literature spun narratives about professors obliged to become servants and scullions, Russian princesses engaged as ballet dancers, generals who were selling matches on the streets. All this put together with the Socialist victory produced a wave of fright in all classes, and I could see a serious fact of corruption and political paralysis. The old parties had been beaten by pussyfoot socialism. That socialism had no aim. It was victorious only through cowardice in the others and because of the general uneasiness in the population. Certainly it did not win on any declaration of a great faith.
 * In 1921 I tried a political agreement and truce with our adversaries under the protection of the government. The utter incomprehension of the Socialists and Liberals was enormous. My gesture, prodigal and generous. created solely by me, served only to raise new fogs, miasmas and equivocations. The truce had been signed by the Socialists but not by the communists. The latter continued the open struggle, helped in every way by the Socialists themselves. A generous experiment in pacificism had been quite useless. Socialism had corrupted Italian life.
 * Among the “Popolari” and Social Democrats I selected those who gave promise of national spirit and who did not intrigue with subversive popularism or with socialism.
 * The old parties clung in vain to the rattling programmes. These parties had to make pitiful repairs and tinkerings in an attempt to adapt their theories as best they could to the new days. It was therefore not sufficient to create—as some have said superficially—an anti-altar to the altar of socialism.
 * But the Fascist negation of Socialism, Democracy and Liberalism must not be taken to mean that Fascism desires to lead the world back to the state of affairs before 1789, the date which seems to be indicated as the opening years of the succeeding semi-Liberal century. We do not desire to turn back; Fascism has not chosen De Maistre for its high priest. Absolute monarchy has been, and can never return, any more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority.


 * Agreed, third-position enteryism is a wp:fringe political perspective and should not be entertained as fact by Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aquillion. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The socialistic aspects of Fascism and Nazism have caused no amount of grief and argumentation, but to any objective observer, it's quite clear that, on the whole, these ideologies opposed socialism. I'm a but more familiar with the situation in Germany than in Italy, and the Nazis there battled both the KPD (Communists) and the SPD (Socialists), first on the streetsm and then in the Reichstag.  When Hitler finally got unbridled power, he put both Socialists and Communists in concentration camps, and -- within the Nazi party -- he gradually drove out or killed the party members (like the Strasser brothers and rohm) who contonued to hold on to the socialistic aspects of the party platform, which were never put into effect. I think Aquillon has got it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, these are quotes I am aware of. When Mussolini references “the socialists” he references the socialist party in Italy. His leaving of and opposition to the party stemmed from their internationalist views and anti nationalist sentiment, as shown below:

“From Milan the socialist municipality sent a special mission to help the so called brothers in Vienna. Sickly internationalism put forth its buds in morbid springtime.”

We can gather Mussolini dislikes the socialist party due to their internationalism. Now, let us look to what he think of socialism or aspected of it outside internationalism, with the following quotes:

“It May rather be that this will be a century of authority, a century of the left, a century of fascism [Mussolini listing these in the way he does implies them to be similar, with “the left” being socialism]... it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism.”

“Fascism conceives the state as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the state.”

“The fascist state is unique, and an original creation. It is not reactionary, but revolutionary.”

Mussolini here endorses multiple socialist doctrines, including collectivism, revolution, and makes implications of supporting other aspects of the ideology in the first quote.

Coming back now to fascist support for socialist economics, Codreanu straight up says in his book “I believe in the nationalization of factories” and the national socialist program states “we demand the nationalization of all associated industries”. These sound like the definition of a socialist economy to me, “centralize all instruments of production in the hand of the state” -Marx.

From all this we may gather, that fascist opposed the socialists due to the socialists being internationalists, while the fascists were nationalists, and that nonetheless, fascists still carried many beliefs that socialists also carried, including economic beliefs. Victor Salvini (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "From all this we may gather" -- no that is original research in primary sources, and cannot be used. The primary demand in socialism was class warfare, destroying capitalism and giving power to the workers. We do not see any of that in Mussolini's fascism. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Commonality of some specific beliefs does not equal acceptance of the ideology as a whole, even if you exclude internationalism. Marxist-Leninism and Nazism are both authoritarian, but that commonality doesn't imply that either accepts the ideology of the other.  Left- and right-libertarians have a great deal in common, but it would go too far to say that they accept the other's ideology. That Fascism and Nazism have aspects in common with socialism, but that's a far cry from accepting socialism or being generally socialistic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have an article on Horseshoe theory. Doesn't mean these people can stand the ideology of the other. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascism began with the same thing socialism requires to begin - a revolution. You claim Mussolini did not “destroy capitalism” when in fact implementing a system like dirigisme is an effective destruction of free market capitalism at the very least. You also claim that socialists give power to the workers upon coming to power. This is not true. Despite being a supposed core theme of socialism, socialists become dictorial after seizing power. After the Russian revolution, the Soviet government conducted mass arrests of union members and non party members.

“…the dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule, unrestricted by law and based on force, of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie…” -Vladimir Lenin, from “the state and revolution”

Anyone who was not a hard core bolshevik was considered to be “the bourgeoisie” Anyone who did not comply completely with the bolsheviks was either arrested or killed (source: The Gulag Archipelago), this is not what I or others would call “giving power to the workers”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Salvini (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We anxiously await your reliable sources, and even how this relates to the article. O3000 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is the bottom line here. Reliable sources, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I anxiously await to be told how the writings of the founders of these ideologies and of people who lived in the countries of those ideologies are not reliable sources Victor Salvini (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They aren't reliable secondary sources as per WP:RS. You are taking primary sources and drawing conclusions WP:OR, I placed a welcome on your talk. I suggest you read it if you want your contributions to be accepted. O3000 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Major Dump's edit
Having failed to get consensus to add his material to Economy of Nazi Germany (see Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany), the editor is now attempting to add the material here. Unfortunately, the same arguments apply here, plus one more: the material is solely about Nazi Germany, and not about fascist regimes in genreal. I have reverted, and Major Dump is warned to stop editing against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors involved in the discussion on the other talk page: Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you even serious? That discussion was to obtain consensus to put that information in the LEAD of that other article, not whether to put it in the article at all. It already was in the body of that article (in different wording). Lack of consensus about something in another article doesn't travel to another article. LOL. Major Dump (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, and here you are trying to add it to the lede of the section about Nazi Germany. Same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I'll just put it at the bottom of the section. Will that stop you from crying? Major Dump (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, your edit has been disputed, and you now need a consensus to add it. Do not restore it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, we can go through the same rigamarole to show that the information you're trying to cancel is reliably sourced. State your objection. GO. Major Dump (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Being as obnoxious as possible is hardly a good strategy to build consensus. I don't believe I've ever seen it work. RESPOND WITH INSULT, NOW . Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're calling ME obnoxious? That's a laugh. Major Dump (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you revert with the comment "Information is not about fascism per se, but about Nazi Germany, which is sui generis." Pay closer attention to what you're doing. That edit was in a specific section called "Political economy of Nazi Germany." You're becoming really disruptive, for no apparent reason. Major Dump (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An incorrect edit summary which I replaced in a null edit with "Correct[ion] of rationale for last edit: the infomration was rejected for the lede of Economy of Nazi Germany, meaning it is not proper to add it to the lede of the *section* on the economy of Nazi Germany here" Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less whether it's in the lead or the end. The section is so short it doesn't matter. Is that really your only objection? Major Dump (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll state very briefly my objections to adding this content here or anywhere else on the encyclopedia unless explicitly authorized by a consensus among editors. Major Dump is at this stage fully aware though discussion at Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany that other editors will likely object to this material and yet has once again begun edit warring to add it into an article anyway. Generalrelative (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you'll recall, the information on increasing regulations was already in that article. What I wanted to do is mentioned it briefly again in the intro of that article. That's what the argument was over. The LOCATION, repeating it in the intro. (Unless you weren't even aware that mention of increasing regulation was already in the body (and from the same source)). Major Dump (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, what's you objection to adding it here? Major Dump (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Look. This information on increasing regulation is already in the Nazi Economy article: "However, the privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference." ("Against the Mainstream" source) So, in arguing against me, you weren't arguing against including it in the article, but against me mentioning it (more briefly) in the lead. Or were you not even aware that it was already in there?? 21:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This situation is different. There's no mention of what I'm trying to put in now (which has been modified to include government spending): "Main characteristics of Nazi economy included the growth of government spending through ambitions programs that required a huge level of spending, and a tightly-regulated economy brought about by intensification of government regulations and controls." Why shouldn't that be in this article? It's peer reviewed reliable sourced. Major Dump (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my recent post on your user talk page. I'm hoping we can de-escalate the situation here and perhaps have a constructive conversation one day. The short answer to your question is that the material does not appear to be WP:DUE. The clear consensus among scholars of fascism is that fascism does not favor any particular economic doctrine, and that with regard to the Nazi regime increased regulation was something they had in common with nearly all their contemporaries in interwar Europe (including the Weimar-era government in Germany that preceded them). Yes, they changed the flavor of some of those regulations (i.e. to favor autarky and re-armament), but highlighting that these were "regulation" in such a way as to give the impression that lots of regulation was a defining feature of the Nazi regime would be misleading. Note that this would be true even if the one source you seem to favor stated it outright, because mainstream scholarship rejects this view. I hope that makes sense. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Mainstream scholarship does NOT reject the view that there was lots of regulation and that was a defining feature. You're just saying that. Major Dump (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Take for example what I just added to the Fascism and Ideology article yesterday: "at the same time, the economy was to no longer to be regulated by market forces but rather by the state according to the goals of political leadership." That is a mainstream view. Now, you can go in and try to revert that if you want, but you're going to be getting into this argument over there too. I honestly think you were just not aware it was a mainstream view, and you were taken aback. But you've dug in your heels so much on this, you can't go back. 13:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Major Dump (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You say "Nazi regime increased regulation was something they had in common with nearly all their contemporaries in interwar Europe.." Not to the same degree, Nazi policy especially controlling. And even if it were exactly the same degree, that's irrelevant. That would still be a defining feature. To be a defining feature, doesn't require uniqueness. For example, if you were a professional historian, that would be defining feature of you, even though there's lots of other professional historians. Major Dump (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

, you seem to feel extremely strongly about this content, trying to add it to any article where it might fit. You're also exceptionally active: you made 27 edits to Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany in a single day, yesterday, to argue in favour of adding this content to the lead. Several of those edits were showing obvious impatience, asking people to respond to your arguments. Please understand that Wikipedia almost never works that fast. I did not even log in during the time when you made those 27 edits. I usually log in only once a day, and that's when I'm at my most active here. By the time I looked at Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany the second time, some 24 hours after my original comment, you had pushed the discussion so far that it had already been closed. Please understand that if you keep replying this fast, I and others will simply not be able to keep up, resulting in your edits being reverted without a lengthy explanation because you never gave us time to write one. -- Amerul (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Now, first of all I want to say that I would not object to you copying some content from the body of the article Economy of Nazi Germany to the body of this article, as long as the copying isn't selectively choosing excerpts that endorse a single point of view. However, that is not what you did here that started this discussion. You tried to add substantially new content to this article, which is not reflected by the body of Economy of Nazi Germany, and that new content is based on the following quote that you keep repeating in edit summaries and Talk page comments: In general terms, the main characteristics of Nazi economic policy were (1) the growth of government fiscal intervention in the German economy through ambitious programs that involved huge public expenditure, and (2) a tightly regulated economy, through more intense restrictions and controls on markets. It is true that those words are found in the source you give, but you are ignoring the broader context. Here is the full paragraph and the one after it:

VI. Pragmatic (economic) motivations. Did the Nazi Government use privatization to advance its economic policy? In general terms, the main characteristics of Nazi economic policy were (1) the growth of government fiscal intervention in the German economy through ambitious programs that involved huge public expenditure, and (2) a tightly regulated economy, through more intense restrictions and controls on markets. The first shock of public expenditure came in public works – particularly the construction of highways – intended to fight unemployment. Soon after these projects were in place, expenditure on armaments began to grow. According to The Banker (1937, p. 114), increased expenditures after 1933/34 were basically taken up by armament programs. These are the main policies that explain the evolution of public expenditure in Nazi Germany.

As early as in April 1934, The Economist reported that military expenditure was forcing the Minister of Finance to look for new resources. At that time, “Railway preference shares are to be sold to the extent of Rm. 224 millions. The Reich property, which is to be ‘liquidated’ to yield Rm. 300 millions, is not identified.”

Those words at the beginning - ''VI. Pragmatic (economic) motivations.'' - are the title of this subsection, because these paragraphs occur in a subsection about the motivations for Nazi privatization. It's near the end of the paper, after ideological and political motivations have already been discussed. As you can see, what this subsection is saying is that one of the reasons for Nazi privatization was to raise money to pay for infrastructure projects (particularly construction of highways) and military spending. Also, military spending accounted for almost the entire growth in spending after 1934-35. These are the primary points made by the source here.

Yes, in passing, the source also says that "In general terms, the main characteristics of Nazi economic policy were...", but it is misleading to take that out of context as if it were some kind of thesis statement. It's not. It's there to explain why the Nazis were in a situation where they had to sell off government assets to pay for their policies. It was because they spent a lot of money on roads and the military.

It is not legitimate to cherrypick the fragment that begins with "In general terms, the main characteristics of Nazi economic policy were..." and ignore the rest. For example, in your edits, you never explain that the "ambitious programs" in the quote consisted of infrastructure and military spending, although that is mentioned by the source immediately after. -- Amerul (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You have gone above and beyond to explain the issues here, and I commend you. This type of time-consuming exegesis shouldn't be necessary in each instance where an editor is reverted, but from time to time it's good to see a masterclass in patient explanation such as this. Generalrelative (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur. I haven't had the time to read the full journal article in question, but I see that it's probably worthwhile to so do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Generalrelative and Beyond My Ken. I'm happy to write out detailed analyses of sources, but I just don't have the time to do it too often... like more than once a day. :) The journal article in question doesn't really say anything out of the ordinary; if you dig through any source on the Nazi economy with a fine comb, you can always find statements that, in isolation, appear to support one's preferred political POV on the Nazis.


 * More broadly, I think this is a common problem to watch out for on wikipedia, not only on Nazi-related topics but on any controversial subject. I'm not active much any more these days, but in past years I would routinely notice a statement on wiki that sounded suspect, check the source, and realize that whoever added that statement to the wiki only read one paragraph or even one sentence from the source and ignored the rest. It's not necessarily due to bad faith. I'm sure what happens a lot of the time is that people do a google search for "policy that I care about in country that I love/hate", find a couple of articles and books, and basically just take the first few sentences they read at face value and edit the wiki based on those. Sometimes I would even run into source X being used to support statement Y on wiki when source X actually describes and then argues against statement Y if you read all of it. -- Amerul (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether it's a thesis statement in the article is not relevant. You're making up your own rule that to cite something it has to be a thesis statement, or that it has to go along with the thesis. I'm not going to even get into whether it's a thesis statements, as that's not relevant. That's not how sourcing works. The source points out the intensity of regulations several times. And beyond, it even says explicitly says it's a main feature. Major Dump (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "...the MAIN CHARACTERISTICS of Nazi economic policy were (1) the growth of government fiscal intervention in the German economy through ambitious programs that involved huge public expenditure, and (2) a tightly regulated economy, through MORE INTENSE restrictions and controls on markets. The first shock of public expenditure came in public works – particularly the construction of highways – intended to fight unemployment..." [my emphasis]


 * "It must be pointed out, whereas modern privatization in the EU has been parallel to liberalization policies, in Nazi Germany privatization was applied within a framework of INCREASING CONTROL of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference." [my emphasis]


 * "On one hand, the INTENSE growth of governmental regulations on markets, which heavily restricted economic freedom, suggests that the rights inherent to private property were destroyed... On the other hand, the activities of private business organizations and the fact that big businesses had some power seemed to be grounds to infer that the Nazis promoted private property." [my emphasis]


 * "“the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in industry....But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of the economy affairs was ENORMOUSLY extended.” Guille baud (1939, p. 219)" [my emphasis]


 * "The Nazi regime rejected liberalism, and was strongly against free competition and regulation of the economy by market mechanisms (Barkai, 1990, p. 10) [my emphasis]


 * All the above from the same source we've been discussing. Major Dump (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I can see that you have done a search for the word "regulation(s)" through that paper, because the word appears only 9 times in 28 pages, and you have just quoted 5 of those 9 instances (of the remaining four, three are in footnotes). As before, you are ignoring the context for these. We've already looked at the first quote you gave here, so let's look at the second one now. The context is as follows:


 * While sales of public ownership provided revenue, privatization of public services was an important source of fiscal relief for the German Treasury, since, as explained above, funding for these programs was based on an effectively compulsory scheme of fees and levies. Table 2 shows the relative dimension of the funds privately managed through programs related to work and to social services. Indeed, as a percentage of fiscal revenues the expenditures avoided to the Treasury were quite relevant.


 * The fiscal importance of privatization proceeds to 1934-37 Germany can hardly be denied, particularly in comparison to modern privatizations like those applied recently in the European Union countries. However, it is worth noting that the general orientation of the Nazi economic policy was the exact opposite of that of the EU countries in the late 1990s: Whereas the modern privatization in the EU has been parallel to liberalization policies, in Nazi Germany privatization was applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference.


 * So, here the paper is talking about the importance of privatization as a source of money for the German government, and notes that the value of the privatized assets in relation to government expenditures in Nazi Germany was comparable to what we find in 1990s Europe, so the two privatizations were similar in this way, but on the other hand they were different in that the Nazis increased regulations at the same time as they were privatizing, while EU countries in the 1990s decreased regulations instead.


 * Now you tell me: Is it reasonable to summarize the above as saying "the Nazis tremendously increased regulation of the economy", with no further details or points? Of course not. That would be like using Hamlet to support the sentence "Shakespeare wrote about people digging up skulls". Is it true that Shakespeare wrote about people digging up skulls? Yes, among other things. Is this a significant fact about Shakespeare's literary work? Well, I suppose there must be at least one paper somewhere that discusses the theme of mortality in the work of Shakespeare and says that the Yorick scene is hugely important. It is indeed a famous and prominent scene. Should we therefore add the sentence "Shakespeare wrote about people digging up skulls" to any article about William Shakespeare or his work? No. We can and do talk about the Yorick scene on wikipedia, but not like that. The sentence "Shakespeare wrote about people digging up skulls" would be taking one scene - an important one, admittedly, but still one scene - and making it sound like Shakespeare's entire work revolves around it.


 * That was not a perfect analogy by any means, but I hope that I have successfully conveyed the reason why I object to your proposed edits (and, I think, also the reason why others object). You seem to believe that the fact that the Nazis increased regulations in the economy is a hugely important issue that must be emphasized, and you are using any mention of it that you can find in the source as a kind of proof text, disregarding anything else the source is talking about in order to focus on this one issue. It is telling that you had to add "my emphasis" after each of your quotes. That's exactly my point. The emphasis is yours. -- Amerul (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again, Amerul, for this extremely helpful explanation. I suggest that all further discussion of Major Dump's efforts to insert their POV on "regulation" into article space –– which has now shifted over to Fascism and ideology –– be directed back here for reference. Generalrelative (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * None of what you're saying escapes the fact that the source says those things. You haven't provided any additional information, or context, from that article that would change the meaning of those statements. Major Dump (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Amerul has given you an extraordinarily detailed explanation for why these details are not WP:DUE yet your response appears to suggest that you are entirely unaware of this policy. That looks like classic WP:IDHT behavior. The responsibility of this community to engage with you on substance appears to be nearing its end. We are not here to be a source of amusement for you. Generalrelative (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the source, a peer reviewed reliable source, says it's a "main characteristic" of Nazi economic policy. That's clear evidence that that it's "DUE," as a brief description of MAIN characteristics of Nazi economic policy belong in the lead. Sounds more like WP:IDHT applies to you. Major Dump (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Perhaps take the time to read the policy before going full-on "I'm rubber and you're glue"? In any case, this conversation has clearly reached its conclusion so here's where we fall back on WP:1AM. I suggest reading that too. Best regards, Generalrelative (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Two is "many"? It's just you and Amerul objecting to the content. (BeyondMyKen's objection has been only that I'm going against the wishes of you two). You two are the so-called "consensus." Major Dump (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Three. I have made it quite plain that I agree totally with the arguments made by Amerul and General relative, and that your attempted edits here and  on Economy of Nazi Germany were violations of WP:UNDUE. You continue to attempt to edit against consensus, and are WP:BLUDGEONing these discussions and not hearing what others are saying.  These are violations of accepted Wikipedia behavior which you need to stop. Argumentum ad infinitum in the hope of grinding down your opponents is not acceptable. There is not more to be said about the substantive issue here - you have been told why the edits are not appropriate, which you refuse to accept.  Until you can find a WP:CONSENSUS to support your edits, this discussion is over, you cannot continue to beat others over the head as you are doing.  If you continue past this final warming, I will have no option except to report you to administrators for sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "I have made it quite plain that I agree totally with the arguments made by Amerul and General relative." I disagree. Looking through your comments above, and in Economy of Nazi Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economy_of_Nazi_Germany I see a lot of complaints about going against consensus, but not that you personally had any objection to CONTENT - only objection that I was going against consensus. I'm glad you're clearing that up now. I would be nice though if you had some arguments of your own to offer instead of just saying you agree with everything Amerul and General relative said, as that's not really helpful for the consensus building process. In fact you admitted above: "I haven't had the time to read the full journal article in question, but I see that it's probably worthwhile to so do." Please do so. Then let us know if you still feel the same. Major Dump (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Major Dump, it is not required that each participant in a discussion must come up with their own unique and separate arguments in order to "count". Some discussions on wikipedia have ten or twenty participants, but they don't have ten or twenty different arguments. They have many people advocating slight variations of the same argument. That's unavoidable, there are a limited number of unique arguments that could be made about a topic.


 * Having said that, your reply to the points I made yesterday seems to consist of doubling down on a single sentence from the source and insisting that nothing else matters except the precise wording of that single sentence. I'm not sure how to continue the conversation from there, because that is simply not an adequate way to write wikipedia articles (or to write anything else for that matter). I gave you the context, and you rejected the importance of the context. -- Amerul (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, since you 3-man-"consensus" has completely rejected that source as a reference for my statement that mirrored that source's statement, for the most bizarre reasons. Here's a source for another proposed sentence: "Under Hitler, the German economic system remained a compound of primarily private ownership of property and capital operating under an ever-increasing and rigid structure of state regulations and controls." (Stanley G. Payne. Fascism: Comparison and Definition). Will you allow that as a source for saying the economy under Hitler was one that allowed private property under increasing state regulation and control."? If not, why not? Can't wait to hear this. Major Dump (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)