Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Nazism/Archive 1

Possible additional participant
I haven't been terribly active in this lately, but I have worked a bit in this area. I've found myself generally in agreement with Cberlet, so it might not be particularly useful to add me to the mediation (since he is already involved). However, if my participation would be useful, let me know. But I don't need to be a formal participant, and (while reserving the right to dissent in the future) will assume for now that any outcomes that are acceptable to Cberlet will also be acceptable to me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Same goes for myself. I am not familiar enough with such procedures to know how they work, but will formally engage myself if deemed necessary. I am abstaining myself from the time being because of lack of knowledge of this procedure. Tazmaniacs 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I finally include myself in this mediation (note: I had not been really active on this, as Jmabel ; however, Cberlet's effort to find consensus on this issue has attracted my attention, and I have since supported him, in particular concerning edit-warring on National Socialism (disambiguation) where Cberlet had to face various users supporting fringe views). Tazmaniacs 15:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this active? -- Vision Thing -- 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

i volunteer to mediate this
this is open right?if it hasnt been taken ill do it.should i just do it?The Pink Panther 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a non-Member of the Mediation Committee, you need all user's  for you, as a non-Member, to mediate.  Daniel Bryant  01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthony cfc
I'd like to thank Anthony for offering to take this case on behalf of the Mediation Committee. For those who don't know him, Anthony is a vibrant and articulate editor, and these have proved to be two traits in completing successful mediations – Anthony's tally stands at 15-or-so successful cases for the MedCab and one successful MedCom case, with only one case that "fell through" (from my understanding).

However, it is understandable that some people may come to the Committee hoping for a member to mediate. This is fair enough, and it is why the secondary survey has been set up regarding Anthony's offer, as normal MedCom procedure to ensure everyone is happy (mediation is all a voluntary process). However, I'll let it be known now that I will be following this mediation, and if you have any concerns for whatever reason about Anthony or the current state of mediation, please email me (see details on my talk). Like I did today, I will be in frequent contact with Anthony via IRC; everything will hopefully stay on track without my input, but if for any reason Anthony needs it, I will be available.

All the best to everyone in resolving this dispute, and cheers,  Daniel Bryant  10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon (GMT time) my fellow Wikipedians. First off, I'd like to thank Daniel for his support in this matter - if there's one editor I'd like watching my back, it's him. Well, as mentioned above, I've had plenty of experience in Dispute Resolution and Mediation, with the Mediation Cabal, as well as one previous request with the MedCom.


 * My personal style of Mediation is to split the discussion into three, seperate and clearly structured sections; this will become apparent later.


 * In the meanwhile, editors that support me as a Mediator are kindly asked to make their opinion known here/ Questions or comments may be directed to me via a medium listed here. Please note that I have archived previous discussions; a link is available in the infobox above.


 * Kind regards, ~ Anthony  10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator's Opening Statement

 * Please note - parts of this statement simply reiterate Mediation; if you've taken the time to have a look over that page, a quick browse of this section should suffice

Good evening (GMT time) my fellow Wikipedians; thank you for opting to reach a consensus in decision making through formal Mediation. The simple action of accepting participation in the mediation demonstrates each party's desire to achieve a solution that will benefit each user as much as possible, the article and the encyclopedia as a whole.

As you may have discovered, had you been reading previous threads on this page, I run any Mediation I am involved in in three stages - "inventively" named, Mediation stages 1, 2 and 3 :) each stage deals with one or more of the common elements of Mediation.

These three stages shall encompass:
 * Mediation Stage 1 &mdash; a short statement from each party, indicating what aspects of the article, etc..., they are opposed to, and what they would like to see changed at the end of the Mediation. Underneath each statement shall be a discussion section, where civil discussion and comments may be posted;
 * Mediation Stage 2 &mdash; the desired outcomes of each party are then converted into possible solutions - "Requests for Implementation". Editors then barter over these terms, by either posting adaptions or retiring that Request for Implementation in favour of a heavily revised version.
 * Mediation Stage 3 &mdash; by this stage, the Requests for Implementation will be coming on thick and fast, and some will hopefully begin to be agreed upon; this is where I come in - as the neutral third party, it's my duty to implement all the edits agreed upon; remember - if you change your mind on an edit, express so and (under normal circumstances) the implementation will be reverted.

The role of me as Mediator shall encompass:
 * Kick-starting each stage, when such times occur as it is necessary/suitable for them to begin.
 * Maintaining the Mediation location, including archiving expired/stale threads, organising/reformatting posts and comments to a form that is more pleasing on the eye, and thus easier to read - all catalysing the Mediation process.
 * Moderating uncivil comments - in line with this section of WP:CIVIL. This includes: refactoring or modification of posts to a less aggressive stance; and removal of outright personal attacks and extreme incivility.
 * Generally striving to ensure that the Mediation is travelling in a direction that the most likely end product is the disputing parties achieving a satisfactory outcome for as many parties and pages as possible.

Editors are asked to remember that...
 * 1) Mediators are not Emissaries. It is not the job of mediators to pass messages between individuals who are not able to communicate. Mediators work to establish the trust and common ground to allow direct communication.
 * 2) Mediators are not Private Investigators. Mediators do not "work for you," nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. Mediators will examine the facts surrounding the dispute in an attempt to understand what each party is looking for and to determine what may end the dispute. The communications that take place during mediation are not appropriate ammunition for an arbitration case, and mediation should not be used as a case building exercise for arbitration. Abuse of mediation communication in an arbitration case will be reported to the Arbitration Committee with a request for appropriate sanctions.
 * 3) Mediators are not Psychologists or Social workers. Mediators work with all parties as a neutral third party; they cannot and will not counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.
 * 4) Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. If you require a spokesperson, request an advocate from the Association of Members' Advocates.
 * 5) Mediators are not Security Guards. Mediators do not protect articles or talk pages from edits by parties, and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules and guidelines. Administrative functions like page protection may be utilized in the furtherance of mediation, but only where supported by Wikipedia policy. Mediators will not report any incidents, and will not serve as witnesses or complainants in incident reports. The contents of mediation are privileged.

Hopefully the ground rules laid down at the start of this mediation will set the ball rolling for a ideal Mediation environment, with pre-established understandings between the parties, and - above all - an inspirational goal to benefit the encyclopedia, this stage in the Dispute Resolution chain shall be the final one attempted.

Mediation Stage 1
This stage is the introductory stage, the goal of which is to establish what each party wants, and why. This will be done via party statements, the content of which will be limited, to provide snapshot-style posts by each individual. The idea is to quickly provide an overview of what the party wishes for from the Mediation; this stage carries directly on to Mediation Stage 2.

Posts should be made by each party in the following form:

Name
My general approach is X.

"...Duis aute irure...", per Policy Name
 * In my opinion, the problem is Y;
 * What I would like to see changed is Sentence A ("...Lorem ipsum...") changed to say

Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered, ~

Discussion
''Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; please restrict it to the above post - general discussion should be placed at the top of this Mediation Stage''.

I ask that all parties conform to this snapshot when posting their statements - in my experience, it's worked well in establishing consensus. As Mediator, I'll keep the posts maintainded, and fix up posts that accidentally differ form this format.

Feel free to drop any questions my way - methods of contacting me are available here.

Kindest regards, Anthony  17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet
My general approach is to highlight majority scholarship, mention significant minority scholarship and significant popular press coverage, and not bring into every entry marginal scholarship and politically motivated attacks.


 * In my opinion, the problem here is that a tiny handful of editors have posted the work of a small set of libertarian and right-wing scholars and political analysts on numerous pages.


 * In some cases these marginal views of libertarian and right-wing sources have crowded out more balanced coverage, and thus distorted the majority viewpoints, and violated NPOV. This in turn has resulted in endless discussions and revert wars.

I would like the questions I raised in the mediation request worked through with the help of a mediator in order to establish how existing Wiki guidelines apply to these matters. Cberlet 13:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
''Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; please restrict it to the above post - general discussion should be placed at the top of this Mediation Stage''.


 * Please give examples of sections that are dominated by liberal or right-wing sources/viewpoints - JoeCarson 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am on the road, so please give me a few days to fill this out. There are dozens of examples. Please note that I wrote about "unbalanced," "distorted," "POV" text that favors "marginal," "libertarian," and "right-wing" views. Please use the term "libertarian" as the term "liberal" has multiple meanings and varies by country. Here are some examples:
 * The New Deal and corporatism. Much of this page represents marginal libertarian and right-wing analysis that is considered at best exotic by most serious scholars. Every attempt to point this out in the lead has been removed. As currently written, this page is a POV fork and should be deleted.
 * Fascism and ideology. "It is often said that fascism is right-wing authoritarianism, but this is not very specific, since the term "right-wing" itself is vague and controversial." The whole discussion is framed by libertarian and right-wing assertions that do not represent the current state of serious scolarship on fascism.
 * The work of von Mises, Hayek, Flynn and others trying to tie social welfare programs to fascism is considered so obscure and silly that most mainstream authors seldom cite them except to point out that these view exist and need not be taken seriously. Yet these libertarian and right-wing authors are cited on page after page listed in the mediation request.
 * When I return from my trip, I will add more.--Cberlet 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My fundamental problem is that Cberlet appears to be trying to marginalize the views of the authors he notes above. Hayek is a Nobel-prize-winning economist, and thus isn't exactly obscure. As someone who left Austria to flee the Third Reich, it seems fairly obvious to me that his opinions on the economics of fascism, and particularly of the German National Socialist regime, would be both germane and notable enough for inclusion. Certainly there is room for coverage of how others may have disagreed with Hayek's analysis, but that analysis is not so marginal as to merit no coverage at all. I would also note that the issue here (so far as I am aware) is not whether the Nazis favored "social welfare" programs so much as whether they engaged in economic planning and centralization that would typically be classified as "socialist" in nature. DickClarkMises 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This goes to two of the question that I asked be discussed through mediation:
 * Should the libertarian/Austrian School analysis of national socialism, Nazism, and Fascism as forms of "collectivism" and thus related to all forms of socialism (and even the New Deal of Roosevelt) be considered not marginal but so important and major a school of scholarship as to be placed in various entry leads and occupy a relatively major part of various entries?


 * Is anyone who publishes a book or article on fascism, nazism, or collectivism to be considered a major scholar on the subject, or is it appropriate for a majority of editors active on a page to agree on which scholars are considered the leading scholars and highlight their views over more marginal views?
 * We disagree on who are the major scholars of fascism. I have 300 books on the subject in the library where I work. Few mention Hayek or von Mises or Flynn. This is true with the major recent scholars (Payne, Laqueur, Eatwell, Griffin, Paxton, etc.). I am not marginalizing these views, the academy has marginalized these views.--Cberlet 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am quite sure that while you are notable in this area, your library collection is not the final arbiter of what is included. Look, I respect that you expend a lot of energies on these topics, but I also have to point out that you, like every other scholar, have your own perspectives, and those do not necessarily represent all of the scholarly (or other serious) work that has been done on these topics. Hayek has certainly been given wide respect as an accomplished scholar in this area. That you and other scholars that you have a personal or professional affinity for do not think much of him has nothing to do with the creation of this encyclopedia article. Please don't misunderstand me: I absolutely agree with you that bombastic lead sentences in these articles aren't helpful to the average reader. Claims such as those that generally compare the economic policies of FDR to Hitler's, Mussolini's, and Stalin's have been made by notable people, but they require more than just a cursory, matter-of-fact mention in the lead-in of a general article. However, when it comes to basic claims like "the National Socialism in Germany included socialist central planning of x, y, and z aspects of the market," it seems easily sourced, and—based on the Wikipedia article on Socialism (particularly the section on Socialism as an economic system)—within the standard usage of the term "socialism." (I should mention that I have not been involved in edit conflicts at all of the pages listed at the top of this mediation page, but rather primarily at Nazism and a couple of others.) DickClarkMises 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on several points, and appreciate your willingness to see the complexities here. I am not suggesting eliminating references to Hayek and others, and have added cites to the Austrian school contingent myself, especially on the page Fascism and ideology. My concern is with balance and NPOV. How high in the articles and how much space for several pages? Why mentioned at all on a few specific pages?--Cberlet 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From what you say here and in response to comments below, it seems to me that the fundamental editorial disagreement we have has something to do with this: in modern political parlance, fascism is typically considered "right-wing" and socialism in considered "left-wing." If one is to consider these relationships alone, it does seem non-sensical to say that Nazism is "socialist," for by their positions on this spectrum, they are opposites. Of course, if one is using "socialist" not as a pejorative (or to some complimentary) description, but rather as a literal, economic description in accordance with the definition of socialism that consensus yields at socialism or perhaps Socialist economics, I think that is apparent that the Nazis did in fact control at least some significant portion of the factors of production in that country and thus had "socialist policies." That the Nazis chose to call themselves "National Socialists" leads one to believe that they weren't unhappy with this economic identity. Now, my opinion on this doesn't much matter so much as the fact that we have notable, reliable sources that make this claim. I am all for centralizing and crystalizing the difficulty with the term "socialist" at an article that makes sense, and then referencing that in the other articles that need it. Since Nazism and National Socialist both refer to the "socialism" term, it seems natural to have at least a cursory explanation of why that word might be there, which would then lead interested readers to the central location for the full explanation of this issue. (Not that I am trying to vote here, but I'd note that leaving linebreaks between comments is fine by me and makes it easier for me to parse the page as well. :) DickClarkMises 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but here lie the dragons on this map. I am broadly objecting to the wholesale inclusion of the ideas of von Mises, Hayek, and Flynn, et. al. and their marginal idiosyncratic ideas on numerous pages where in only a few cases they might deserve a brief mention. Only a tiny marginal set of right-wing scholars and writers call the Nazi economic practices "socialist policies." Only a tiny marginal set of right-wing scholars and writers suggest that "national socialism" as it emerged in Germany in the 1920s was a typical form of "socialism. Only a tiny marginal set of right-wing scholars and writers suggest that Nazism was on the "political left." Only a tiny marginal set of right-wing scholars and writers seriously suggest that there were substantial similarities between fascism and the New Deal.  Some scholars talk about similar ideas of social and economic organization, but here on Wikipeida there has been a longstanding campaign to inflate the significance of the claims of a tiny marginal set of right-wing scholars and writers. The issue is what is the mainline of scholarly thought on the named pages, and on what handful of pages is it appropriate to cite von Mises, Hayek, and Flynn, et. al?  It is as if a cadre of vegetarians was posting "meat is murder" on dozens of pages, and then claiming this was a sensible mainstream idea taken seriously by most scholars.--Cberlet 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of those articles need serious work, but they should not be eliminated. No serious scholar of the New Deal would deny its relation to corporatism.  We should be careful not to supplant a liberal or conservative viewpoint with a Marxist one.  Though much of the information in those articles comes from the Austrians, the quotes by presidents/dictators could just as easily have come from other sources.  Furthermore, the Austrians are the most economically minded historians of fascism and it would be difficult to find many other reputable works on fascism from an economist's perspective.JoeCarson 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Payne, Laqueur, Eatwell, Griffin, and Paxton are hardly Marxists.--Cberlet 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They might not be Marxists, but they don't write from an economist's perspective. Anyway, when I tried to add Payne's and Griffin's view that fascism is anti-conservative you quickly stepped in to delete that element. Also, what about Zeev Sternhell and James Gregor, what disqualifies them as scholars of fascism? -- Vision Thing -- 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are serious scholars of fascism. Gregor has a broader appeal and reputation. Sternhell is widely seen as brilliant but idiosyncratic. The issue about "anti-conservative" was what appeared as a misrepresentation of what was meant by "conservative" in the sentence and at the time of Hitler's rise to power. I have no problem with the current wording on the Fascism page, it make important distinctions much clearer. the term "anti-conservative" should not be used to suggest that most scholars of fascism see it as a left-wing tendency. That appeared to suggest a misrepresentation of the majority research.--Cberlet 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Anti-conservative" wasn't used to suggest anything; it was just listed in the elements of fascism, supported by sources. If you agree that Gregor and Sternhell are serious scholars of fascism, why do you object so much with connecting fascism and socialism? Gregor argues that fascism is as different from National Socialism as National Socialism is from Bolshevism. What it shares with National Socialism, it shares with Bolshevism. They are all variants of the same genus.; while Sternhell argues that fascism sought to adapt socialism to modern conditions. -- Vision Thing -- 11:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you did not know that libertarian also has multiple meanings. Just know that when I write "liberal", I mean someone who is supportive of liberty.  I prefer that term because it more clearly evinces the relation with classical liberalism.JoeCarson 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the terminolgy issues, perhaps we could simply use the unambiguous term "classical liberalism"?--Cberlet 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work, guys - great progress, and remember to keep it cool. On a WikiFormat note, don't leave a line between comments - just go straight to the next line, indent and write your reply ;) at the moment, just hovering about watching for incivility, but I don't think that's going to be a worry! Any questions, drop a note my way ~ Anthony  21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have a vision issue, and cannot easily read the page if there is no line between commments when I am writing. I am pushing 60.--Cberlet 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies - it's just me being an obsessive ... ignore me :P I just noticed, anyway, that MediaWiki ignores the lines in between, so it formats the same as a jumble of posts with no intermediate line breaks, but with the added bonus of your easy sight! ~ Anthony  16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing
Current issues concerning me are whether National Socialism and National socialism should redirect to Nazism or to disambiguation page, and whether Friedrich Hayek's views should get prominent place in articles and sections discussing nature of National Socialism and socialism.

My opinion is that redirects should lead to Nazism because that is the most common use of those terms (this can be easily checked by Google search). As for Hayek, he is at the same time one of the most prominent economists and one of the most prominent political philosophers, so his views deserve elaboration in all relevant articles. -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly that is your opinion, -- Vision Thing --, but it is not shared by the majority of other editors. Yet you recently persisted in promoting your opinion, and engaged in repeated edits that went against the will of the majority--which is one reason I brought this to mediation. I argue that your continuous attempts to link socialism and fascism on multiple pages is a marginal view, and neither collaborative nor constructive. I hope we can have this discussion here without it spilling over onto entry pages.--Cberlet 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
''Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; please restrict it to the above post - general discussion should be placed at the top of this Mediation Stage''.
 * Thanks for your comments; discussion? ~ Anthony  21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs
I agree with Cberlet on the issues raised. First, Hayek & von Mises are marginal in these issues, compared to the others authors cited by Cberlet and known by contributors of these subjects.

Another point, not that much lifted by Cberlet, is the Nazis' own claims to Socialism, which have been supported in these pages, sometimes through WP:OR by direct quotes of Nazis claiming to be the "real Socialists". The latter is an obvious ideological attempt which has no place on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, the Austrian School of Hayek clearly made a peculiar reading of Nazism which attempted to identify it with Socialism, by making them both bearers of the same flag: government control of the economy. Hayek & Mises ideological intent were to disqualify any state intervention in economy, and they thus claimed that any such attempt would lead to Nazism.

Thus, in 1943 Hayek wrote to the British, referring to the Beveridge Plan, that "we are in the danger of knowing the fate of Germany", that is of entering totalitarianism (because of the Beveridge Plan &mdash; quoted by Foucault, 07/03/1979 p.195 original ed.). This was also used to attack the New Deal or social market economy in post-war Germany, all thought to lead to totalitarianism.

Hayek has not been awarded the Nobel Prize because of his conflating all types of governmental interventions in economics as totalitarian, so there is no reason to include these ideological claims, which were directed before everything against the then predominant economic policies of Keynesianism. Not any more than to listen to the Nazis when they claim to be the "real Socialists" (when they're talking to the workers, that is &mdash; they had a different discurses when talking with people such as the industrialist Emil Kirdorf...).

Corporatism has the explicit intent of bypassing class struggle by a nationalist ideology, contradicting twice Socialism (class struggle & internationalism). This alone is sufficient proof for not conflating Nazism with Socialism economic policies. The Nazis and Fascists made the apology of small businesses, threatened by supermarkets. They dreamed of an archaic nation of small owners, a dream shared by the Radical-Socialist Party in France or Proudhon before him, and which is miles away from the "cold monster" of state control of the economy. They passed alliance with the industrial capitalism (military, steel, etc.) against softer industries (Fertiginudstrie, chemicals, textile, etc.) Hence the support of Fritz Thyssen or Emil Kirdorf.

Thus, if we leave out the Nazi ideology of being "real Socialism" (as "anti-Semitism" is real "anti-Capitalism" because of the "Judeo conspiracy of bankers"), we're left with the Austrian School attempt to describe a model of state intervention in economics, the one represented by Nazism and Fascism, as yet another form of Socialism. It is clear however that to conflate the Beveridge Plan, the New Deal, social market economy, the economics followed by Fascist Italy or by Nazi Germany all under the same banner of Socialism is a straw-man argument, which can not be decently spread out all over Wikipedia by an ultra-minority of contributors, against over-all consensus demonstrated over and over on the relevant talk pages. Tazmaniacs 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
''Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; please restrict it to the above post - general discussion should be placed at the top of this Mediation Stage''.
 * Thanks for your comments; discussion? ~ Anthony  06:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, Hayek's use of collectivism (in the Road of Serfdom for example) was certainly not only with regards to economic planning.
 * Was Stalinist Russia socialist?
 * Are people like Hugo Junkers not industrial capitalists?
 * Intangible2.0 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hayek
Reasons why Hayek has won Nobel Prize were outlined in the speech made by one of the members of the Royal Academy of Sciences on presentation of the prize to Hayek: ''Hitherto the prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Noble has been awarded to researchers who have made pioneering contributions in what we called "pure" economics. (...) However, there are prominent researchers in the field of the social sciences whose range of interests covers other and wider areas than those embraced by the term "pure economics". Among these prominent researchers are this year's prize winners, Professors Myrdal and Hayek. (...) Hayek has extended his field of interest so as to take in the legal framework of the economic system and psychological-philosophical questions concerning the way in which individuals, organizations and different social systems work. Both scholars have shown a dominating interest in problems of economic policy, including possible changes in the organizational, institutional and legal structure of society. (...) These politically-coloured differences, however, are altogether subordinated to a common attitude towards social science research: the conviction that the major socio-economic questions of our time cannot be fully understood without interdisciplinary broadening of the range of problems studied as well as of the methodology applied. (...) It is above all the analysis of the viability of different economic systems which is among Professor Hayek's most important contributions to social science research. From the middle of the 1930s onwards, he devoted increasing attention to the problems of socialist central planning. In this area, as in all others to which Hayek has devoted research, he presented a detailed exposition of ideas and conceptions in this field.''

I quoted from speech extensively to show that Hayek won Noble Prize for his contributions to economics and social sciences, particularly for his detailed exposition of ideas and conceptions concerning socialist central planning. I think that particular importance must be given to Hayek's views because of his interdisciplinary expertise. Scholars who specialize just in one narrow area can often miss a "big picture", which can be better captured by someone with a broader scope of expertise. This Hayek's dual importance is further emphasized in "The Cambridge Companion to Hayek" where it is stated that he was among most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century. It is further said that He is widely regarded as the principal intellectual force behind the triumph of global capitalism, an "anti-Marx" whose ''famous book The Road to Serfdom was a prophetic statement of the dangers which socialism posed to a free and open society'.'

I think this is enough to establish Hayek as an extremely notable person in these fields, a person who can recognize socialist central planning when he sees one.


 * I think there is no question that Hayek wrote about socialism and collectivism, and is famous for it. The issue is whther or not his views rate being peppered across Wikipedia in a way that unbalances numerous articles, especially when tied to the subject of fascism, a field where Hayek is generally dismissed as marginal by the leading scholars of fascism. No one is suggesting that Hayek is not well known.--Cberlet 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hayek is not only famous for his writing about socialism and collectivism, but his writings are also considered relevant in those fields. WP:NPOV requires that all significant views should be represented in Wikipedia articles without bias, and if Hayek, as an acknowledged political philosopher and expert in socialist economic systems, says that Nazism is a form of socialism then his view should be properly presented. Also, Hayek is not alone in this. For example, Peter J. Boettke, another distinguished economist and co-author of Britannica's article on economic systems, also agrees that government of Nazi Germany was socialist. -- Vision Thing -- 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialism
As for your claims about economics of Nazi Germany, I would like to cite Stanley Payne (whose expertise on fascism is acknowledged by Cberlet): ''Hitler's basic stance was that National Socialism meant the subordination of the economy to the national interest: Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (The common good before individual good), according to one of the most widely publicized Nazi slogans. (...) From 1936, especially, the tendency was firmly toward ever more state regulation and control, a network of government Zwangswirtschaft (a forced or compulsion economy). This did not take the form of direct state ownership but instead the systematic subordination of all sectors of the economy through controls, regulation, strict taxation, contracts and allocation. (...) Because of widespread governmental intervention to rescue banks that were failing during 1931-32, a large part of German bank capital was already owned by the state. The war accentuated such tendencies, which might as well be termed "military socialism" as anything else.'' -- Vision Thing -- 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is suggesting that Fascism and Nazism have no historic connection to socialism. What is generally regarded as marginal by the leading scholars of fascism is the claim that Fascism and Nazism are merely another form of socialism. A clever quip by Payne is not the same as the main body of his superb work.--Cberlet 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That quote comes from Payne's main work, A History of Fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)