Humanities desk
< April 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 1

Free markets and single-party rule

Am often reading on the internet in forums etc. that people conflate Soviet Union, Maoist China & Nazi Germany as (atrocious) examples of socialism/communism in 20th Century. My question concerns solely economics (& not political ideology or human rights): Is it possible to say that Nazi Germany operated economically in a manner close to Francoist Spain or the current Chinese CCP in terms of free markets under single-party rule? are these three economically comparable or not, thanks Ecolchester (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Economy of Nazi Germany. Even in World War I, the German war economy was very centrally controlled: see Economic history of World War I#Germany etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The economic crux of socialism as practiced by Stalin and Mao was collective ownership of the means of production. That was not a feature of Hitler’s economy.DOR (HK) (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between ownership (which is to say, an economic concern) and the control (which is to say, a political concern). In all totalitarian systems, control is what matters, in both Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR, the state had the ultimate control over people and the work they did, including being able to compel companies to produce and people to work specific jobs. However, in Nazi Germany, ownership of the means of production remained in private hands; for example Friedrich Krupp Germaniawerft remained under private ownership even if they were compelled to make ships for Nazi Germany. In Soviet Russia, ownership of industries was collectivized, which is to say they were state owned. The big difference is that in Nazi Germany, profits from such industries were funneled into the hands of the shareholders of the companies. In Soviet Russia, profits from such industries were funneled into the machinery of the state. Now, whether or not such distinctions matter is another story (as Mikhail Bakunin famously stated "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"") but at a fundamental economic level, that's the difference. --Jayron 32 15:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a nice summary and very well put; thanks, Jayron. I especially like the "People's Stick" line. There are identifiable differences, but they relate mostly to who the oppressors and their clients are, not so much to the fact of oppression. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All true, but of course, during WWII all the major belligerents effectively operated as command economies. Companies in the non-USSR Allied Powers similarly weren't nationalized, but they were also forbidden by the state from producing anything deemed non-essential. I believe one potential difference is that in the Allies there was competitive bidding for government contracts. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's no reason to think this was meant as a temporary measure by the Nazis, whereas in the liberal capitalist countries it clearly was. --Trovatore (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will be noted that the OP said, “My question concerns solely economic...” Given that, in “solely economic” terms “control” refers to either majority voting rights or management control. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, "free market" is a theoretical economics term that is constantly abused in political debate, generally with the implicit definition of "a market with my desired characteristics". Beyond the simplest kinds of economic activity, like "I'll trade you these beans I'm holding for that maize", markets involve rules, systems, etc. that are constructed by society. If I'm lying and the beans are actually cleverly-painted rocks, anything other than you just accepting being scammed or coming after me yourself involves society. You can find similarities as well as differences in markets in Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, and the present-day PRC, and analyzing these is interesting from an economics perspective, but this also sounds like it may come from some motivated reasoning to "prove" the PRC is actually…fascist! (Commie-Nazis!) "Markets in Nazi Germany had feature X, and markets in the PRC also have X; therefore the two systems are the same" is the association fallacy. By this reasoning, the Nazi Party had an anti-tobacco policy, so if you support anti-tobacco policy, surprise! You're a Nazi Party member and you didn't even know it! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be particularly strange to see the PRC as fascist. Militarist nationalism, personalism, a largely privatized economy but clearly subordinated to the exigencies of the State. Ticks most of the boxes. Not especially racist, but neither was Italian fascism, prior to the alliance with the Nazis. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. Fascists are proud to claim they are. Undocumented, but factual. --Askedonty (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proud to proclaim they are what? --Trovatore (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That they are fascists. If in the EU, you challenge, say, a rude antifa face to face for behaving like a fascist, he will probably proudly concede he doesn't intend to amend himself. --Askedonty (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be so, but I don't see how it implies anything in particular about the PRC. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the economic argument a match. A point is that historicaly fascists movements were, and are an intent of changing societies and cultural models toward some goal of virtuousness, with an economy, possibly, merely subordinated to that goal. What would the PRC intend to change? --Askedonty (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fascism (viewed by its own lights to the extent I understand them) had internal and external goals, the internal ones being promoting virtue, as you say, at the individual/family/cultural level, and the external ones having to do with restoring the nation to its merited respect from abroad and recovering its just possessions (irredentism). I have to admit that I just don't know enough about China to comment on the "internal" part of that formula. But the "external" part seems to match up quite well. --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fascism" is just about uniformly anti-Marxist, which makes it slightly problematic to call the "Communist Party of China" fascist. Words have meanings. Of course the word "fascism" has become something of a joke due to its constant abuse as an all-purpose insult; when people say things like "requiring me to separate recyclables is fascist" and are treated as anything other than loons, the horse has left the barn, found a mate, and settled down to raise some foals. This is partly why actual far-right groups have largely abandoned the term as a self-description. And anyway, if someone is, as I described, trying to get others to accept that the PRC is "fascist", they aren't advancing a sound argument. This is standard association fallacy: Nazi Germany was fascist, which is bad; Nazi Germany had property X; anything with property X is fascist, which is bad; the PRC has property X; the PRC is fascist, which is bad. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC hasn't been "Marxist" for quite some time. Not sure if you've noticed. What they are is fiercely nationalist and authoritarian, with a pragmatically state capitalist economy, an established party that guards its privileges jealously, a leader with a cult of personality, a priority on military expansion to push for irredentist claims.

This isn't "fascism" as an insult word; I agree that that sense of the word has lost all meaning. But if I wanted to call them an insult word, "communist" would do just as well. It's simply descriptive.

By the way, Nazism is not the same as fascism. The original fascists were Italian, and clearly distinguishable from the Nazis, though the two streams did empty into a common river in the end. --Trovatore (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths from 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic

The article 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic states 18 people died worldwide from the virus during the period of the epidemic. Can someone help me find a source (not Wikipedia and not an amalgam of the citations in that table) that states that the zika epidemic resulted in 18 deaths? KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found Fatal Zika virus infection in the Americas: A systematic review (November 2019) from the International Journal of Infectious Diseases which says: "While death due to Zika virus (ZIKV) infection has been described, reports of fatal cases have been infrequent and no systematic reviews on the subject have been published". However, there is a mass of information in there which may yield your answer, but at a quick glance, it doesn't jump out at me. Alansplodge (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the cultural differences between Alabama and Mississippi?

I am a non-American interested in the ways of the Deep South. What are the cultural differences between Alabama and Mississippi? --949,496,382 edits (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a non-American, the answer is most notably none. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Our articles on Alabama and Mississippi both have a section describing their culture.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For non-southern Americans, Mississippi tends to be seen as the quintessence of the South -- everything that makes the south different from the rest of the U.S. "turned up to 11", including rural poverty (see the Mississippi Delta, called "The Most Southern Place on Earth"), low government services, traditional anti-black racism / economic exploitation. etc. For many years, Mississipi came in last among the 48 or 50 U.S. states on many economic and development rankings (not sure what the situation is today). Alabama has some colorful characters, like George Wallace, but can't quite compete with Mississippi as most distinctively southern... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best people to ask would be locals from the area rather than random folks on Wikipedia with their own limited perspectives and biases.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, Mississippi is more rural and less urban, and also less industrialized than Alabama. Birmingham, Alabama was a major center of the steel industry in America, and the Birmingham metropolitan area, Alabama has a population over 1 million, and is a fairly cosmopolitan city. The largest city in Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, has a much smaller industrial base, mostly centered around food processing and distribution (i.e. moving agricultural products, which is what one would expect in a large rural area) and the urban area has about 1/2 of the population. Indeed, the largest metro area in Mississippi isn't even in Mississippi, it's the Memphis metropolitan area, Memphis being in Tennessee. Also, Huntsville, Alabama is a fairly significant tech hub, being a locus of the aerospace industry in America, and has Cummings Research Park, which is one of the largest such concentrations of R&D and tech companies in the world. Mississippi doesn't have anything to compare with that. Geographically, Alabama is also more varied; the northern part (especially the Northeastern corner between Huntsville and Chattanooga, TN) is mountainous and really a southern extension of Appalachia, while the other parts of the state are rolling plains. Mississippi is basically just flat. While both states are part of the Deep South, Mississippi generally lags behind in most economic and industrial indicators from Alabama. --Jayron 32 15:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your answers. --949,496,382 edits (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the differences are notable, as the states were incorporated into the U.S. as one territory and then divided. Mississippi has always been dominated by agriculture, given the rich land of the Mississippi Delta as well as timberlands, and never really developed an industrial base like Alabama did. There is definitely a cultural perception among many in the U.S. of Mississippi as a strong contender for the "most backwards state". This would be, it should be noted, entirely at the hands of the white political establishment that has controlled the state even until today. Miss. is the state with the highest-percentage black population; D.C. and the USVI are higher but they're not states. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 4th Marquess of Dufferin and Ava

Our article Basil Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 4th Marquess of Dufferin and Ava has him as a Deputy Lieutenant, but does not say of where. Can anyone help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on his page at www.thepeerage.com, neither is he included in their Index to Deputy Lieutenants. His uncle, Terence Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 2nd Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, was "a Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant for County Down" - I wonder if there has been some confusion? Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cruikshank of the News Chronicle

I would be interested to learn more about R. J. Cruikshank, sometime editor of the News Chronicle, and author of the Britain in Pictures volume on the Liberal Party. His forenames were Robert James, and he was known as Robin. He was made CMG for his work at the Ministry of Information in the War. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same CRUIKSHANK, Robert James who passed away peacefully at Bethany Collegeside on Monday, July 22, 2019 at the age of 91 years? DroneB (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This one died in 1956. I have now found Barry, Gerald; Brodie, Marc (23 September 2004). "Cruikshank, Robert James". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/32652. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) and Cruikshank. "Cruikshank, Robert James". Who's Who. A & C Black. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U236241. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |othernames= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) but would be grateful for anything else. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to In Memory of The Star Robert James Cruickshank dates are 1896-1956. He was editor of The Star newspaper from 1936 to 1941. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a photograph of him in the National Portrait Gallery - actually, a whole stack of them. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "snippet view" of Obituaries on File, Volume 1 (1979) p. 134, gives: "CRUIKSHANK , Robert James , 58, author, editor of the London News Chronicle, May 13 1956 in London". Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And several mentions in The Last Chronicle of Bouverie Street by George Glenton, William Pattinson. Apparently he was the Chronicle's correspondent in Washington DC before he was editor. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]