Talk:Producerism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled Thread[edit]

Wow. Nice job.--Cberlet 21:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I swear there used to be a Producerism page that was pretty good and it got deleted for whatever reason. Seems like a lot of Wikipedia is someone's "turf" and if you intrude on it your stuff gets zapped. I created a new category last night, spent a lot of time on it, justified its existence, and already it's been listed as a candidate for deletion.

Hopefully this page will survive though. Thanks for the compliment. Mjk2357 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of the discussions here are quite old, which makes me wonder why the POV tag is still on the article or whether there will ever be a way for it to be removed. In spite of that, I just wanted to post to say that this is one of the best WP articles I've ever read. I totally disagree with the POV tag; this is an honest, informed, and compelling distillation of a very important pattern in modern political and social life (in the US, at least). If there was anywhere to actually vote on the article, I'd put my name down to have the tags removed and for it to get one of those stars. Great job, folks. Fang2415 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This page will likely survive, but hopefully not with its current bias and POV. I'll try to make some changes my self, but other knoweledgable people with perspectives different from the original author should contribute to try and bring some balance here. SINGLES' BAR mitzvah 02:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think I am? Pro-Producerism or Con? I'd love for other people to contribute, but I think I wrote about the controversy/confusion surrounding the term pretty well.

Why is it if you do anything but minor tinkering your work is immediately blasted into NPOV-land or deleted? It looks impressive that Wikipedia has 800K articles in English until you realize most of those are probably gazateer entries and stuff about Pokemon (exaggerating of course).

Until things get a little less touchy it'll just discourage anyone actually "being bold" creating and editing pages.

Sigh... Mjk2357 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any review of scholarly literature will demonstrate that Mjk2357 has done a very good job of including a number of view points in a fair and NPOV way.--Cberlet 02:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the support. I'm waiting for "SINGLE'S" to tell me whether I'm pro or anti. I guess this back-and-forth is all part of the fun for some people but like I said I think it's discouraging. Instead of just complaining that an article is POV and tagging it, how about doing a little work to make it more neutral if you think there's a problem?
I guess anything with politics runs into complaints, no matter how fair you try to be. I pity anyone that tries to write articles about religion!
If the "delete any page that doesn't reference a million + 1 other sites" crowd gets its way, what's the point of Wikipedia? After all we already have Google and there are a ton of free reference sites on the Internet that can tell you all you need to know about the housecat or George Washington. To me the real strength of Wikipedia is to write about obscure subjects that aren't adequately summarized elsewhere.

Mjk2357 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see someone trying to synthasize a difficult subject. I might suggest mentioning and/or connecting it to the literature on the moral economy and attacks on parasitical usury. If I get a chace, I'll come back at link it up myself in the next week. User:Brodie, 10 Nov 2005

"In the United States, Producerists are distrustful of both major political parties. The Republican Party is rejected for its support of corrupt Big Business and the Democratic Party for its advocacy of the unproductive lazy waiting on their entitlement handouts (Kazin, Stock, Berlet & Lyons)." This is blatantly POV, and instantly put the entire article into question when I read it. The way it is written makes the assumption that the Republican Party supports corrupt big business and the Democratic Party supports the "unproductive and lazy", assertions that both parties and most of their members would probably refute. Furthermore, is it really possible to make a generalize about Producerists, an admittedly vague category, about their opinions on both parties?

Also, this article doesn't use references properly at all. The "A debated history" section, the area that draws on the most opinions, doesn't have a single reference to where those ideas are coming from. Moogle001 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think since most of the references are books (not websites) - this is actually a sign of a well referenced article. However the standard "link to some website" reference format is not followed in that section, I agree. Take some time to review the printed material and add references as you see fit. I'd start with the Michael Lind book. Thanks for your interest in the article.
P.S. - The article does not state that the GOP and the Democrats actually confirm to those stereotypes - only that those in a Producerist mindset tend to think that they do! Mjk2357 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it skims the POV line... I edited that one section down a little. (My bad for not logging on.) Also tagged the article as POV, because most of it either is or is pretty darn close. Phrases like "decadent inheireted wealth" and "dangerous apathy and sloth" strike me as POV unless it's a quoted and put in a frame of reference. As it is it just sounds like some author's saying it.
Don't get me wrong--there's some potential here to cover the Producerist viewpoint, but it's going to sound pretty partisan until it's rephrased. Kennard2 11:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how NPOV could be achieved[edit]

Read my comments on Producerism at Talk:Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America and the reasons why I removed it from being used as it was in the Reform Party article. I also make some criticisms of the article on Producerism itself. I understand that you try to write about the controversy/confusion in using the term Producerist, and you mention that often its used as an epithet. But still if you read the article it looks as if its on based how its been linked to fascism and conspiricism as how its meant with the epithet, with passages that only in a cursory way question it. Its probably not your intent; I think that writing an article which doesn't try hard to separate the controversy from the actual idea, and structure the article that way, will tend to look biased. I think it would be better not to try to add in more differing viewpoints to the same article, but try to restructure the article. A good strategy I think would be to at the very beginning (after a brief summary of the idea) point out that producerism in abstract can be seen as a polar opposite to consumerism (as producers are to consumers), then mention that it has been used to describe a certain political sentiment that has come up historically, which can be called producer radicalism, mention various appearances of it in history (focusing on the use for 19th century populism but touching on other occurances, yes, such as in fascism), then mention if the ideology existed as something that were articulated how it would be summed up, then discuss the link and confusion while comparing it to the radical middle, and finally why the term is meaningful to both opposers and supporters of the idea, including those left-groups that use it as an epithet. I think if the article were structured this way it would appear far less POV and take on a more scholarly tone. If its OK I will try to write a draft structured this way. Brianshapiro

It is not OK. Please supply some cites to back up your POV. Scholars have talked about producerism for years.--Cberlet 03:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm talking about is not a POV but a restructuring of the article to reduce the appearance of bias. I wouldn't replace the text of the article as it is without sharing my draft in discussion here first though so dont be alarmed about that.--Brianshapiro, 03:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it "Producerism" as a term meaning the ideological opposite of Consumerism is only a British/Canadian usage and that's stated in the article. Obviously Producerism is not the same thing as anti-Consumerism as the terms are used in America.
As far as the Reform Party goes... its Perot-era platform of a high tarriff, reduced immigration and a resentment of political and "international" elites is just about the epitome of Producerism in my book. As for the party now... nominating Buchanan one election and Nader the next... seems like it's mostly a front that other movements find convenient to use and it doesn't really have much of an ideology anymore.
To come out of the political "closet" a little bit, I'm actually pretty sympathetic to Producerism (though not in its racist extreme, of course), so it's been funny to me to watch all these comments come up that this article is POV against its subject.
Mjk2357 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party Ideology[edit]

Perot never proposed high tariffs, he was merely against the no-tariff position of free trade. He also never laid out a strong stance on immigration, or talked about international elites; but corruption in government, which fits radical middle dialogue. The Buchannanite stance thats now in the platform came after Perot, and is something many party members disagree with. Obviously, Buchanan was more right leaning than Perot. Its hard to call Perot a right-wing populist indeed, because he appealed to centrists, with equal support from Democrats and Republicans, for years representing the block of swing voters, then called "Perot voters". Different progressive groups have tried to suggest the Reform Party was always right wing, even despite the Buchanan takeover at one point, which just isn't true. And even with Buchanan, who is closer to the Producerist frame, if you explained it to him its probably something he would deny, just like he denies the label isolationist. So at any rate, I'm just arguing it would be a controversial position for the Reform Party article to portray the party as "Producerist", the more NPOV position is "Radical Middle". Which is why I wanted that changed. Similarly, I wouldn't have the Libertarian party article label them as "Consumerist" though it may be a fair POV. The Producerist article is fair in mentioning the Reform Party, though I think. I hope this is understandable.

I guessed you might have sympathies to Producerism, I think the article is a little biased nonetheless, through none of your intention; just because of how its formatted. I'm just suggesting the article be written a bit differently, I'll come up with a draft and present it on the talk page and you'll see what I mean. I think that would explain more what I mean than to just talk about writing it.

To come out of the "closet" myself, I worked in the Reform Party before the 2000 election when there was a party split and Buchanan take over. Not only did I not appreciate the addition of Buchannanite planks, which many party members still want out---but even when it was completely Perot influenced I had some disagreements with how the party ideology was framed. Nonetheless, I know how party members viewed their own positions--and from that I know the label would be argued against strongly. My own position I guess would be that I don't support Producerism as much as I don't support Consumerism, when both are taken as radical ideologies (If you look at them as abstract positions which may be non-American use, though there are really no blocs for either in America). The only reason I might sympathize with producerism is because that side is underrepresented.

Brianshapiro
Hmmm... never really made the connection in my mind between Reform Party<-->Producerism and Libertarian Party<-->Consumerism but that makes a good deal of sense. I would say that overall the Republicans would fall in the Consumerist "Bloc" as they take a "let the consumers decide" approach to issues such as Wal-Mart, imports, etc. although this only goes so far as many GOPers want to restrict violent and sexual material that the market "wants."
As far as Perot goes I never read his official platform but I seem to remember a lot of talk about a "giant sucking sound" and how we need to protect native industry. Historians call a tariff designed as a protectionist measure a "high tariff" no matter what its actual level might be. A "low tariff" by contrast is just designed to collect revenue for the government, not keep out or limit imports. That's how I understand it anyway.
Perot might not have talked much about immigration (I'm not an expert on Perot speeches), but having been around his supporters in '92 I know it was a very very hot topic and they saw Perot and the Reform party as being on their (anti-immigration) side of the issue. They saw Republicans supporting immigration for wage-suppression reasons and Democrats doing the same for ethnic-identity political reasons and therefore Perot was their only hope on the issue.
I agree that calling the Perot-era Reform Party "right-wing" is a mistake but then I think the whole term "right-wing" is too broad to be of much use nowadays. Any term that encompasses both Pat Buchanan and Ayn Rand has limited precision to say the least.
Mjk2357 01:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I admit there was some in the party who were concerned about immigration, even though there was never a consensus and wasn't in the platform in the Perot-era. Dick Lamm made this an issue after all. But, first if you look at the stances on welfare, health care, etc., there was never any desire for curtailment, even though there was a desire for structural reform. And if you look at the actual reasons for being aggressive for immigration, even, it doesn't fit completely within an 'ideology' of producerism either. It might also be thats where analysing Libertarians as consumerist breaks up, on welfare issues (if I understand what consumerism would mean correctly). Producerism seems to specify a very particular mindset. I just had questions whether it was the best NPOV description of the party ideology. Brianshapiro
I'll take your opinion on Reform Party official ideology in the Perot era as better informed than mine. My experience was with his grass-roots supporters in Pennsylvania and they were to a man (few women involved at that time) anti-immigration and in favor of sharp cutbacks in welfare and other social programs. I know that doesn't mean that the party officially took these stances, but I think it influenced the subtext of the Perot campaign. Similarly, I'd be willing to bet that the GOP platform doesn't say anything about the US being a "Christian Nation" but the Party base sure believes that it is and this influences the "sub rosa" messages in Reublican politics.
The one thing I'll quibble with: You say Producerism is a "very specific mindset." I'd disagree... I think it's uncertain exactly what Producerism is (or was) and I tried to reflect that in the article. Many a historian will tell you it died out with William Jennings Bryan's defeats. Others will say Bryan was just the beginning or a precursor. The term means something quite different in Canada than it does in the US, etc. We can say that Producerism is against free trade, promotes the (supposed) values of the common people over the elite, and has a rhetoric of class struggle (which would set it apart from Integralism), but does this make it a coherent ideology or just a vague sentiment? I'd say somewhere in between.
I'm sorry to say I don't see where there would be a break between Libertarianism and Consumerism on welfare issues. As I understand it "Consumerism" when used to describe an ideology (rather than a behavior or a cultural critique) basically means
1. Increasing Consumption is good for the economy and society in the long run and the negative social consequences of a culture heavily influenced by material acquisition are acceptable.
2. Consumer demand should dictate the structure of the economy. For example, if the consumer demand exists for a Wal-Mart, say, then a Wal-Mart should be built. If consumers want to keep the mom & pop stores in business, great, but governments should have no say in the matter. Basically, if Company A makes a product more popular than Company B, then it's just too bad for the workers at Company B and the communities that may depend on Company B.
Seems pretty consistent with Libertarianism to me. Both imply reduced or eliminated welfare benefits.

Mjk2357 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google search[edit]

Why doesn't this page show up anymore on the Google search? Is there a way to get pages erased from Google, or am I just being paranoid? Mjk2357 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but exceedingly unlikely that it was done intentionally. The page doesn't seem to be in the database at all (see page-specific search). Google's algorithm may have simply ignored it in the last update for some reason. // Pathoschild 06:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tags[edit]

A number of tags flagging "dubious" section have been added, but where is the discussion? It is not useful to tag and run.--Cberlet 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tags REASONS[edit]

HI, my name is Northmeister and I tagged the page.

If your going to post any article expect people are going to make sure it is credit worthy and historically true and that it follows the FIVE PILLARS. Guilt by Association is not Truth nor Fact. Lumping different people or groups together no matter the fancy word used for a purpose to discredit what you do not believe is as wrong as the Nazis blaming the Jews for all of Germany's evils or for controlling the banks through Guilt by Association techniques! JUST PRESENT THE FACTS and the EFFECTS of different systems: Communism, Fascism or Democracy -- Progessivism or Conservatism -- Adam Smith or Alexander Hamilton -- Free Trade or Protectionism -- laissez faire, Marxism or American System. Thus, you let people decide for themselves and be enlightened to each without advocating or making up names to fit your ideology. Do not use this website for personal expression of opinion making terms up to do so.

This is a rant, not a useful discussion. The references for this page include cites to numerous academics. Your opinion is fascinating, but here on Wikipedia, we cite to reliable published sources. Please refrain from further personal attacks on me as a Wikipedian or my work as a researcher. For the record, LaRouche is a fascistic antisemitic convicted criminal and crackpot.--Cberlet 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A RANT? It is FACT. Calling LaRouche names is not professional at all. You may not like his opinions but that is no reason to say he is a Fascist, Anti-Semite.. etc. etc. That is ranting sir! I never attacked you directly by the way, so where did that come from? The points I made above are good points worth discussing. Post on the Conspiracy Theory page if you have something useful to add to that discussion. Conspiracism or Producerism is not in any list of expressions I am familiar with in academia. It does not belong here if it is to be used as a personal attack on people who believe in the traditional American capitalist approach backed up by the way with Facts (whether you believe in that approach or not it existed, unlike the concept of producerism, which does not fit the people you put here!)...thats my point. Again show me the evidence that Producerism fits Buchanan, Perot, the Reform Party, the traditions of American economics? According to the page you provide, they do not. NORTHMEISTER

Sigh... annoying LaRouchoids[edit]

Well I was going to weigh in and say that the "dubious" tags should be deleted just because any informed Wikipedia user knows to go to the talk page to read more about controversial subjects -of which this is admittedly one.

However, now that I know this guy is just another LaRouche troll I am going to delete them for sure. Just FYI Northmeister I created this article and I consider myself pretty sympathetic to Producerism (though not its racist or religious aspects). I have a VERY expensive degree that is now completely useless because of our govt's shortsighted economic policies... I still don't get how people think this article is anti-Producerist when I wrote 90% of it and I'm certainly not opposed to the philosophy.

As for references I first heard about Producerism on C-SPAN not from Chip Berlet and I also read about it in a Salon interview - also not involving Mr. Berlet. It is a term used in sociology and political science quite frequently from my understanding.

Cheers, Mjk2357 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mjk2357,

I've been re-reading your Producerism article and feel with some questions answered it could it would be fit for Wikipedia. I would like to first reiterate that I am not in any way connected to Lyndon LaRouche, except I know of him, support his historic analysis for the most part as credible, oppose his conception of British Aristocracy (ie. his Conspiracy theory on that...which he has a right to explore, I just don't think there is enough evidence for this) etc. My defense of him is on the moral grounds and ethical conduct grounds per certain persons who not only attack him but other "right wing" "Nuts" "Cranks" with false association (Guilt by Association, fallacy) with Nazis, Fasicsts, etc. That said:

  • Who coined the term "Producerism"? Cite this in your article for clearity (readers should know where this 'term' comes from).
  • Who has associated the Reform Party of America with Producerism?
  • Who associated the producerist term with America's past Presidential candidates (like 'Cross of Gold' man William J. Bryan)?
  • Is there a difference between populism and producerism? or clearify their similarities.
  • Is there a difference between nationalism and producerism? or clearify their similarities.
  • What elements make Producerism distinct from simple Nationalism or Protectionism or Mercantilism or Nativism?
  • Who are some of the Scholars who have commented on Producerism not associated with the Public Eye website which is a advocacy website?
These are concerns of mine. After re-reading your article, I feel it would be legitimate for Wikipedia, not needing Deletion if it were written more clearly as to the above concerns of mine. My main concern is the article is more like a polemic from a producerist than a neutral encylopedic article that shows producerism and its beliefs and those 'claimed' to be a part of that philosophy. I am willing to work with you on this article if you will address my concerns.
Lastly I share your concerns about the course of our economic policy and the destruction of our manufacturing and industrial capacity. As a student of history I know we became the Arsenal of Democracy in a very specific way with very specific policies. So I empathize with you on that point. --Northmeister 02:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about you bother to do some actual research? A sixth-grader with a library card could answer these questions in a few hours. A hint...the cites are ALREADY on the page. Jeez!--Cberlet 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Chip Berlet or Cberlet it is not that easy. On one hand this article cites a source which defines Producerism as: "The word Producerism was coined by Wayne Fazio in order to get past the simplistic images conjured up by so many who like to use the word anarchism or anarchy in a negative way." www.producerism.org [1]
On the other hand, the your own writings seem to contradict this statement and I again quote:

"Calls to rally the virtuous "producing classes" against evil "parasites" at both the top and bottom of society is a tendency called producerism." at www.publiceye.org [2] Also in contradiction to the above statement at producerist.org your site states that that the term producerism is derived as follows: "Our conception of producerism is derived from Alexander Saxton’s discussion of the “Producer Ethic” as an ideology of the early White labor movement that “emphasized an egalitarianism reserved for whites.” " [3].

Now, which is it? Since you did not originate this article, then I am interested in the originator's response, and not yours as you have a 'conflict of interest' regarding this article and should not be editing pages that refer to your theories or that contain links to your words or sites your associated with. This is true also of the Conspiracism page. You cannot edit your own articles because of the 'conflict of interest' in doing so. Only a third party not linked to you can do a fair and honest job with this topic.
My questions are legitimate. First because if the first definition is true then your definition is not. Second, if your definition is true then the first is not. In the first instance this would mean the entire article needs a re-write since if you look at that link, the producerist notions are anti-government and anarchy oriented [4] and can it be claimed that Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, even the much maligned Lyndon LaRouche are anarchists? Can it be a truth that the Reform Party of the United States is anarchist? - If the second definition is true, then this article would fit but would need to clearly indicate that it was "Alexander Saxton"[5] and "Moishe Postone" [6] who influenced Mr. Chip Berlet or the Political Research Associate's to coin the phrase. So which is it, or is there another inventor of the term I am unaware of? --Northmeister 05:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Producerism? Where did the term come from?[edit]

Northmeister I'll take your word for it that you're not a LaRouche partisan. As you may know, supporters of LaRouche are infamous for causing trouble on Wikipedia, deleting articles that mention LaRouche or refer to his politics (even indirectly) etc., so hopefully you see why I thought you were one of them!

Anyway, to adress some of your questions....

Who coined the term Producerism? I don't know and haven't been able to find out. Like I said I saw it on C-SPAN and read about it in Salon and in the Nation. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Wayne Fazio though: The Producerism.org site is pretty incoherent - it seems like one guy's personal philosophy and I don't think it has much to do with what we're talking about.

As the Producerism article states the meaning of the term is vague - it can refer specifically to the 19th century, to an abstract position opposing "Consumerism," or to something more specifically American.

Who has associated the Reform Party of America with Producerism? Darren Ferry for one. I'm not sure if the current Party is much more than a shell for various groups that seize control of it. In the Perot era I recall the Nation magazine refering to Perot as Producerist.

Who associated the producerist term with America's past Presidential candidates (like 'Cross of Gold' man William J. Bryan)? Various historians - see the page citations. A quick Google search I just conducted revealed a Texas college history syllabus that included Producerism under the section "Guilded Age Ideologies." (http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~dblanke/1302%20Study%20Guide%20Part%20I.htm)

Is there a difference between populism and producerism? Producerism seems to be a populism of the middle class - as opposed to traditional "elities vs. commoners" populism, Producerism mutates that into "elites and the underclass vs. the common people."

Is there a difference between nationalism and producerism? Producerism is undoubtedly nationalistic, at least in its American form, but not all nationalisms are producerist. For example, there are many military-oriented nationalists in America who nevertheless support free trade. A producerist would not.

What elements make Producerism distinct from simple Nationalism or Protectionism or Mercantilism or Nativism? Producerism contains elements of all of these. See above for its distinction from simple Nationalism. Producerism is protectionist - perhaps that is its most defining quality. It is a socially conservative economic nationalism with a "two-front" conception of class struggle.

Producerism is not necessarily nativist - some producerist tendencies glorify the "hard-working" immigrant and contrast him with the "lazy" (usually black) native-born member of the underclass. If you know any men in my father's generation you've probably heard this sentiment quite frequently!

Producerism could be considered a modern Mercantilism with the addition of strong class resentments that were not present in 18th-century Mercantilism.

Who are some of the Scholars who have commented on Producerism not associated with the Public Eye website which is a advocacy website? Once again, see the citations.

Hope this speaks to some of your concerns. Let me know what you think. Mjk2357 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, and actually I can see you've done some homework on this. The only remaining concern is some of the wording in this article and the articles structure. I will offer my suggestions and work with you as creator of this page. I apologize for jumping the gun on this, because of the way it is worded it looks like a highly disguised attack on someone who opposes Free Trade or modern economic dogma, lumping them together and giving them a fancy name to label them as somehow different and out-side the box politically. I will offer my suggestions in the near future. Thanks again and may America not forget its past, for therein lies the answers to where we should begin. --Northmeister 23:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try actually reading any of the major books that discuss producerism. Reality extends beyond the Internet. Try using a library card, for example.--Cberlet 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verify and worldview[edit]

Stuff like the following uses Weasel words, see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and as such I have added the verify tag.

Critics of producerism see this analysis of the political economy as easily leading to Anti-Semitic and/or Racist conclusions, as Jews are often associated with finance and other minorities with the abuse of public generosity. But most supporters of producerism do not identify as racist or antisemitic, and denounce such charges as ad hominem attacks.

If this is an American only movement then this should be mentioned otherwise information about other producerist movements should be added and the US-centric content toned down slightly or made into a section, as such I have added the globalise tag.-- FrancisTyers 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the existing cites section specifically answers many of the objections.
  • Producerism and conspiracism and middle being squeezed, (Canovan 1981, 54-55; Kazin 1995, 35-36, 52-54, 143-144; Stock 1996, 15-86; Berlet and Lyons 2000, 4-6).
  • Producerist white supremacy and the attack on Blacks after The Civil War (Kantrowitz 2000, 4-6, 109-114, 153).

Producerist antisemitism and German Nazi ideology (Payne 1995, 52-53; Postone 1986).

  • Berlet, C., and M. N. Lyons. 2000. Right-wing populism in America: Too close for comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Canovan, M. 1981. Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Kantrowitz, S. 2000. Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
  • Kazin, M. 1995. The populist persuasion: An American history. New York: Basic Books.
  • Laclau, E. 1977. Politics and ideology in Marxist theory: Capitalism, fascism, populism. London: NLB / Atlantic Highlands Humanities Press.
  • Payne, S. G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Postone, M. 1986. Anti-Semitism and National Socialism. In Germans & Jews since the Holocaust: The changing situation in West Germany, ed. A. Rabinbach and J. Zipes, 302–14. New York: Homes & Meier.
  • Stock, C. M. 1996. Rural radicals: Righteous rage in the American grain. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press.
I will add them in paranthesis.--Cberlet 18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up and prompt reply! :) I noticed that there were some references, but ideally they'd be in the style of Wikipedia:Footnotes. Would be nice if the references were cleaned up to be the same format too. - FrancisTyers 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it would be nice if folks could agree on a citation format for longer than a month. :-) --Cberlet 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too true :) I actually came to this page from Third Way (UK), I'd never heard of this particular movement before. I'll remove the verify tag and move the globalise tag to the talk page, its clear that this article is being worked on and I don't want to tread on your toes. - FrancisTyers 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No treading. All your requests were very reasonable. I have just been lazy.  :-) --Cberlet 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best-cited articles of its type... and I'm not bragging, I didn't do most of the citations. There was no reason to remove the big chunk of text that you took out. If it's cited it's not weaseling, by definition. I'm ok with the tag you added, since we need more info about non-American Producerism here, but I'm restoring the text pending objections. Mjk2357 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove any text o____O - FrancisTyers 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honest, as above, no text was removed. :-)--Cberlet 20:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't see it had just been shifted. Thanks for your interest in the article. I will look for citations for the Reform Party reference. I think there's one earlier on in the talk page. Mjk2357 21:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism and Fascism[edit]

are distinct (see articles linked above) , just like producerism and nationalism, protectionism (see below) 62.25.106.209 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, new comments go at the bottom of a user page. If you want to claim that the Nazis weren't fascist you're going to have to argue with Hitler himself, who stated on numerous occasions that his regime was inspired by Mussolini's. If you can't take his word for it, the taxonomy of 99.9% of historians and political scientists classify Nazism as a variant of Fascism.
Mjk2357 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts... producerism and nationalism are not distinct. The former is a subset of the latter. "Different" does not mean "distinct." Your body and your liver are different things - but one is inside the other.
Mjk2357 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are dud arguments man - both nazism and fascism are types of socialism but wheres the section for that? anyway i've changed the section to "Fascism and Nazism" to help prevent confusionism. As for Hitler - inspiration is not the same as derivation or identification!! 62.25.106.209 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with your title change, but please provide sources for your assertion that mine are "dud arguments." If you've read any halfway decent book on Nazi Germany, you can start with "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," you'll know that the "Socialism" of the NSDAP was never sincerely felt by the senior leadership, and those Nazis that did take it seriously, such as Ernst Rohm and Gregor Strasser, were purged. Even Feder was eventually sidelined into a sinecure as business interests with no time for Producerist notions, let alone Socialist ones, took control of the Party's decision making.
Hopefully, you're not one of those admirers of Mussolini or lukewarm neo-Fascists who are always trying to scrub the stain of Hitler from your movement. Believe me, it'll never come off.
Mjk2357 01:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be stupid - maybe i should ask you whether you are a neo-Nazi trying to claim Fascism as part of the Reich then, eh? 62.25.106.209 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably unlike you, I've met some real neo-Nazis. To a "man" (I use the term man loosely describing such losers), they describe themselves as Fascist. So, like I said, don't take the issue up with me - take it up with the vast majority of Nazis, including Hitler, that called themselves Fascist. Mjk2357 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<----The idea that "both nazism and fascism are types of socialism" is a marginal view. The consensus at several pages is that it may be mentioned, but not claimed to be a majority view. The major discussion is at Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 13:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Producerism and Individualism[edit]

  • "Like fascism, producerism supports strong State intervention in the economy as necessary to preserve national strength and identity. However, Producerism, especially in its American incarnation, generally holds to an idealization of the "rugged individual" and a sense of freedom and self-determination that would pose problems in any attempt to graft it onto fascism or communism."

This is a claim that represents a far right, ultra-conservative, or ultra-libertarian viewpoint; or a serious misrepresentation of scholarship on producerism. At the very least start with a legitimate cite. Otherwise the material will be removed based on standard Wikipedia criteria.--Cberlet 02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That statement has been there for a very long time! What's your problem with it now? It seems to me it goes along with the general theme of the article. Just look at the poster at the top of the article. That's a "rugged individual" if I've ever seen one, and I doubt you'd deny that the Grange was Producerist. What is Producerism if not the individual facing off against the impersonal and parsitic forces of the the State, Big Business, and (sometimes, unfortunately) immigration?
As for a source, how about yourself? You write: The John Birch Society (JBS) maintains that internationalist "insiders" with a collectivist agenda, (claimed to be behind both communism and Wall Street capitalism), are engaged in a coordinated drive to destroy national sovereignty and individualism.
Now, if you accept that the Birchers had strong Producerist tendencies, which I think you would, and you describe them as believing in a secret force controlling both socialist and capitalist forces and directed against individualism, then isn't that just what the paragraph you removed stated?
Mjk2357 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not claim to explain to me my own writings. Without a cite, the claim is original research. I also think is it is POV and frankly wrong. You cannot use me as a cite when I disown the claim. Find a cite, or live with the deletion.--Cberlet 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, don't be nasty. I thought we were on the same side on this article. I was pointing out that what you wrote in your article contradicted your deletion - you didn't address that. Nor did you give your opinion on whether or not the Grange or the Birchers were Producerist - I'd be interested to know your position on that since both groups celebrated the (white) "rugged individual." Further back in time we could consider Andrew Jackson: The literature which describes his ideology as Producerism is extensive, and if you know much about his campaign rhetoric, it was all about the small independent farmer and the brave (again, white) men settling the frontier.
Christopher Lasch has written extensively about Producerism. In The True and Only Heaven on p. 224 he defines Producerism as the belief that "wage labor functioned... conditioning the hard-working young man to the qualities necessary to rise to independent status." That is, as an independent, autonomous farmer or small-business owner. This is hardly a Fascist or Communist attitude, and that was the point of the paragraph. Good enough cite for you?
I think our disconnect here is a function of the fuzziness of the term "Producerism." I don't know if we can avoid the problem altogether. Unfortunately, as the article mentions, there's no Producerist version of "Das Kapital," and no Producerist Party with a set platform to refer to. Under these conditions, I think everyone has to live with an article that offers multiple visions of Producerism.
Mjk2357 05:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for snapping.
Look, the problem is that the paragraph ends up garbled and by starting with the term "fascism" and ending with "rugged individualism" makes it seem to claim that this negates the fascism aspect. There are too many aspects being conflated, and then an uncited OR conclusion. Producerism (and faux rhetorical Populism) were core aspects of fascism, especially in Germany, and the "rugged individualism" co-existed in the frame of the Volkish outdoor hearty nature lover--even as it was subordinated to the will of the organic whole as interpreted by the leader. So whether or not "rugged individualism" in the U.S. negates the potential for it slipping into a proto-fascist mode is disputed by various writers. If Lasch (or anyone else) wrote it, we can certainly cite it here; and then I will cite the authors who disagree. Not a problem. Yes the JBS is producerist, as was the Grange movement. But in Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Matt Lyons and I argue that populist producerism is exatly the mechanism that generates movements such as the KKK, and many contemporary right-wing movements, and most contemporary neofascist and neonazi movements.
Again, apologies for being short-tempered, I have been having health problems common for someone sliding downhill towards 60. Not a good excuse for ripping your head off, cyber-wise.--Cberlet 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and sorry to hear about your health problems. You've been a great contributor to this page. I'll write up a modified paragraph later today. I think long-term we need to distinguish between moderate Producerism (the typical Perot voter), and the extremest tendency (Buchanan towards Birchers towards the KKK).
Mjk2357 15:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<-----Thanks. Yes, you have pinpointed the problem. As sociological "master frames" populism and producerism can be used by a wide variety of social and political movements.--Cberlet 16:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the closing paragraph of the "Other Ideologies" section including your criticism. Thanks for the input. Btw, have you been on TV? I think I remember seeing you on a program about neo-Nazis.
Mjk2357 22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My family jokes that they know something horrific has happened when I get interviewed for a TV program.--Cberlet 13:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New material[edit]

The section on Marxism could use some cites, and the rewrite changed their meaning. Let's rely on published material, not OR. This is a complicated and contentious topic.--Cberlet 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious topic seems to be the one sentence about antisemitism and other racial/cultural theories. I didn't think it's possible to explain that in a short section under a different subtopic. Maybe as an early, fundamental quote Engels, who said "that antisemitism is the socialism of the little man"? Reference to Proletarian internationalism? The english language wikipedia is in a poor state regarding any output by political scientists from the former "real existing socialist" countries. Listing "Marxism" as a totalitarian movement is highly contentious too, it would really have to be "Marxism/Leninism" to be correct. Viande hachée 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on removing Marxism from Totalitarian section. I don't really think that your new material altered any meanings, but it didn't really add too much either, so I'm staying out of this debate. Mjk2357 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to add material cited to published scholarship. Uncited opinion just makes this a blog.--Cberlet 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but we must distinguish between pure uncited opinion (blog-level stuff - bad!) and analysis and extention of thought based on cited sources. If we can't have the latter, what's the point of Wikipedia at all? With the exception of some scholarly articles that you have to pay for, in this age of searchable books, the sources in question can just be consulted directly. Mjk2357 12:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supply-driven?[edit]

I don't have references, but I've heard 'producerism' being used to express the idea that the nominally demand-driven economy is significantly supply-driven, with company marketing seeking to create consumer 'demand' with (for example) aggressive advertising particularly evident in kids' cartoons being used to create a demand for particular toys, but also with the drive to 'bigger, better, faster'. To a lesser extent, I've heard it linked to the idea that consumers are denied goods or forced to accept goods which only partially address their requirements because one or more large companies have either consolidated what could have been several product lines (aggressive commoditisation), or because a company has a monopoly and refuses to address demand for what are perhaps strategic reasoss (e.g. Sony not producing a keyboard for the PSP, and apparently failing to cooperate with a third party trying to produce one). SleekWeasel 13:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're describing sounds more like a critique of Consumerism or what some call the "corporate command economy." However as the article notes the meaning of "Producerism" is fuzzy and means different things in different countries. I have never heard the term used to describe what you've written, but if you can find a good source feel free to add it to the article as an alternate meaning. Mjk2357 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration or ILLEGAL Immigration?[edit]

The article says:

"Producerism sees society's strength "drained from both ends," from the top by the machinations of globalized financial capital... and from the bottom by members of the underclass and illegal immigrants whose reliance on welfare and government benefits drains the treasury."

Then it contradicts itself, saying just after:

"Immigrants are viewed as a threat to the prosperity of the middle class, a drain on social services..."

Which is it? Immigrants or ILLEGAL immigrants? This could make the difference between agreement and disagreement with Producerism for many. I'm also wondering if this is really just an oversite, or a POV intentional meshing of the two vastly different notions of legal and illegal immigration (a common tactic of pro-illegal immigationists).--Daniel 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it depends on what "degree" of Producerist you're dealing with. Some oppose only illegal immigration - some are for ending or severely curtailing all immigration. I think you could make a legitimate edit to the article on that point. Mjk2357 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I have. I changed "immigration" to "illegal immigration" in the sixth paragraph of the section "A Debated History..." and I changed:
"Immigrants are viewed as a threat to the prosperity of the middle class, a drain on social services, and as a vanguard of globalization that threatens to destroy national identities."
to
"Illegal immigrants are viewed as a threat to the prosperity of the middle class, a drain on social services, and as a vanguard of globalization that threatens to destroy national identities. Some advocates of producerism go further, taking a similar position on legal immigration."--Daniel 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good edits. Thanks! Mjk2357 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Some sections have cited sources - please request sources for specific paragraphs. Tagging the entire article is not helpful.--Cberlet 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Garbage?[edit]

Many of you seem to feel that this article is fabricated to support some idiotic view. And after reading it a few times, I agree. I for one think we should delete it, but seeing as I am but one humble man, I propose a vote.

1: The article stays and I gladly die fighting to keep it alive!

2: The article should stay, it's existance is justified.

3: The article should be deleted, it has no place here.

4: The article should be deleted and I would gladly start a few bar fights to get rid of it!

Choose one and explain your reasoning....Long live democracy! (Demigod Ron 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This article already survived a vote to delete in February 2006. The proper procedure is to list it for deletion again, and have an actual vote. It is not appropriate to hold a vote for deletion on the discussion page of an entry. Long live democratic rule-making at Wiki. --Cberlet 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Producerism.jpg[edit]

Image:Producerism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion of Marxism-Leninism[edit]

The statement that Marx treated industrial and finance capital (other than as part of the common underlying construct) monolithically is patently and verifiably false. The contrast of the 19th century use of the term "Proletariat" with the current nebulous usage "middle class" is no less whack. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: the "proletariat" is defined as that portion of society that lives by wage labor. This would include most of today's "middle class", but not most of what was considered the middle class in the 19th century. That's what the author of the text is apparently completely oblivious to: the term "middle class" originally referred not only to an income level but to a class of largely independent producers who were indeed petty bourgeois, small time capitalists. With the development of capitalism this group is inexorably converted by big capital into proletarians, i.e. wage labourers, their professional standing which would have made them petty bourgeois in the 19th century is largely irrelevant in the current state of affairs. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence[edit]

"The domestic innovators and patriotic industrialists such as Henry Ford, Lee Iacocca and Sam Walton (whose Wal-Mart imports moved over 1.5 million jobs that might otherwise be in America to China between 1989 and 2003, a year after Walton's death.) are the heroes in this view of the business world, while the cost-cutting CEOs and unaccountable financiers are the villains."

Is it because Wal-Mart outsources jobs that Walton is seen as a hero? Or is it despite that? If despite, then why is he seen as a hero? Presumably Walton presided over the quoted outsourcing of jobs until his death in 1992. Something like this would be better:

Domestic innovators and patriotic industrialists such as Henry Ford, Lee Iacocca and Sam Walton are heroes in this view, while cost-cutting CEOs and unaccountable financiers are villains. Ironically, Walton's company Wal-Mart outsourced 1.5 million jobs between 1989 and 2003, but producerists consider him a hero because (they do not know about the outsourcing / the outsourcing occurred after his death / his enterpreneurship trumps the jobs in important/...).

-Pgan002 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "producerism"[edit]

The words "producerism" and "producerist" should not be capitalized unless they are at the start of a sentence or they refer to a political party. This is like the words "capitalism", "communism", "fascism", "consumerism", etc. "Marxism" and "Leninism" are different in that they are based on proper names, and so are capitalized in English. I have corrected the capitalization in the article. -Pgan002 (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the other producerism[edit]

Producerism first showed up on Wikipedia fist at a philosophy that organizes society without government. In web searches through out all history there were no mention of producerism. The website producerism.org describes this philosophy. On the main page the website is listed but lied about. I have tried to change its attributes but they are immediately removed. I would like to know the permanent way to correct its description.Producerism (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticism doesn't make any sense. The Wikipedia article on Producerism was created at 17:45 on 22 October 2005. If one reads its initial content by clicking here, one can see that the definition of producerism has not radically changed despite the article being expanded and improved over the years. Regardless, it is important to know that the definition of a word can and will be changed to reflect what reliable sources (essays and books writen by mainstream scholars and journalists) to reflect what they authoritatively state on the subject. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

That being said, on the About page of the producerism.org website, we can clearly read the following text:

Current Society
Producers: They produce all the products and services that we use to fulfill our lives.
Looters: They take resources from the producers and use those resources to control the producers and moochers.
Moochers: They receive booty from the looters and become victims by becoming dependent.

Producerism.org is mentioned and linked to in the External links section of the Producerism article with a note that summarizes the website as dividing “society into Producers and the "Looters" (elite) and "Moochers" (underclass) who exploit them.” Please explain to us how this is lie?!? --Loremaster (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive destruction"[edit]

There is clear consensus for version B. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I reverted this edit, which had the quaint edit summary "Revert massive destruction." I prefer the version that has been there lately, for the following reasons: it doesn't contain large amounts of Original Research, and does not place undue weight on fringe viewpoints. The fringe viewpoints I refer to are the ones that conflate Producerism with various forms of radical populism, or construct guilt-by-association arguments (that would be Chip Berlet, the great fulfiller of Godwin's law.) The version I restored provides some historical background from actual scholarly works, which is missing altogether from the "revert massive destruction" version. The version I prefer is much shorter, which may seem like a liability, but I prefer a short, accurate article to one that is larded with fringe viewpoints. 99.146.12.110 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Massive Destruction don't seem to feel much like discussin', he's just revertin'. So to try to resolve this, I'll initiate an RfC and get some other viewpoints. 99.126.47.241 (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is brewing at Producerism between proponents of this version (which we'll call Version A), and proponents of this other version (Version B). Opinions from other editors are needed; which version is more consistent with Wikipedia policies, and/or useful to the reader? 99.126.47.241 (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version B (marginally) because it's more neutral in tone and somewhat better sourced. I think much of the content deleted from Version A, if it can be reliably sourced, could be redeemed by editing and improved citation style rather than deleting. Jojalozzo 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with removing unsourced material and also including information about producerism and the railroad strike. However I oppose removing material by Chip Berlet with the claim it is "fringe". Berlet and Matthews coined the term producerism[7] and are widely cited in academic literature on producersim. Far from using Godwin's law, Berlet saw producerism as an element in both left and right wing movements. TFD (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Berlet et al coined the term is debatable. Both the Robert Ascher book and the Roseanne Currarino book that are presently cited in the article pre-date the Berlet and Lyons book that is cited. But my objection is to Berlet's standard tactic of saying in effect, "some people holding producerist views were also white supremacists, anti-immigrant, hated welfare moms, etc., so therefore all persons holding producerist views should be considered 'right-wing populists'." You can see this demonstrated in his comments on this very talk page. But mind you, I'm not proposing that his views be excluded here. I'm just saying that it would be mistake to have them completely dominate the article, as in some earlier versions. 99.126.44.205 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think he says that. His book is however about rw populism, one element of which is producerism. But are there any producerists today outside rw populism? TFD (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B / Removal of Article Looking over both versions and checking the citations and references I would argue that the article fails to be encyclopedic and the majority of the references offered are poor ones, however that could be due to the esoteric nature of the subject.
Version B should be preferred since it contains far less unfalsifiable and poorly-sourced citations yet it provides links to further materials in the unlikely event that anyone actually searches the Internet for such information. Wikipedia is often a jumping-off point for people doing research so the reduced set of information, in my opinion, should be used. Damotclese (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User Damotclese. There is room for improvements. Fox1942 (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - Legobot asked me to comment, and I've never encountered this term before that I can remember. Can someone please point me to the use of the term in the context of inheritance taxation policy discussions? EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links[edit]

I removed the following from the EL section because they do not comply with standard usage for that section. Some of these are probably good sources for article content so I've preserved them verbatim here.

Supporting[edit]

Opposing[edit]

Scholarly[edit]

  • Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore. Book proposing a Jacksonian and evangelical origin for producerism
  • Every Man a Speculator: A History of Wall Street in American Life. Book that includes section on Producerist hostility towards financial capital.

Jojalozzo 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were correct to remove these. I would only link to an external article if it were extremely notable to the subject. Of course some of these articles may be reliable sources, in which case they could be externally linked through the references section. TFD (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos[edit]

It's sad there is more content written over arguing about what content needs to be written than the actual article. By a trillion-fold. I tried my best to merge "version A" with "version B" listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Producerism&oldid=587182668 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyWaffle (talk • contribs) 12:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the working class fit into this ideology?[edit]

"Namely it upholds the traditional values of the middle class as the only true national values." Do the adherents of this philosophy not think that the working class produce anything? If so, the article needs to better explain how "Producerists" define "production of wealth". If not, the statement about values needs to be better worded, or at least define what is meant by "middle class". (Actually, "production of wealth" and "middle class" need to be better defined here anyway;;). 62.172.108.24 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the references to that section are incomplete. It seems that in some definitions no distinction is made between groups in the class below middle class. http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/populism.html Jonpatterns (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think both the post above have made some important points. Plus, the lead sentence not only does not represent the text below, but most of the recent social science on producerism -- especially that by Cas Mudde. Anyone interested in trying to improve this page? Chip.berlet (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Producerism&oldid=1090398317"