Rep vs. Dem Differences

Tom S. wrote:

James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:

Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements a

An authoritarian power structure

Agreed.

A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)

Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
against a completely free economy, preferring government direction, but
also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
of left or right leaning in economic terms.

In other words, a collectivist economy, as Wdtabor stated.

No. It wasn't at all collectivist. Industries weren't nationalized,
and the major corporations, like Bayer, Krupp, Siemens, et al continued
to exist in a cozy relationship with the government. It was quite
profitable for those companies, who worked with the government to
promote their economic policies. Kind of like how Haliburton works with
today's government, which certainly can't be called collectivist.

Overall, using strictly an
economic measure, Fascism was neither left nor right, but somewhere
slightly right of center.

Irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, since the economic definition of left-right puts
Fascism close to the center, not at either extreme. They opposed both
extremes - socialism, or a laissez faire economy, preferring some
government control, but corporate organization. The economic measure is
probably the primary contributor to a left-right definition.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Tom S. wrote:

James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:

Fascism comes in a number of flavors, but the key elements a

An authoritarian power structure

Agreed.

A collectivist economy (either socialism or feudalism will do)

Disagree. While Fascism morphed somewhat over time, it was intensely
against socialism from the beginning. That opposition was one of the
prime tenets of the philosophy. That said, the ideology was also
against a completely free economy, preferring government direction,
but
also not for the benefit of the masses. The idea of government control
was more in line with their authoritarian bent than it was a statement
of left or right leaning in economic terms.

In other words, a collectivist economy, as Wdtabor stated.

No. It wasn't at all collectivist. Industries weren't nationalized,
and the major corporations, like Bayer, Krupp, Siemens, et al continued
to exist in a cozy relationship with the government.

I don't know your take on collectivism, but it's as much a matter of CONTROL
as it is of OWNERSHIP.


It was quite
profitable for those companies, who worked with the government to
promote their economic policies. Kind of like how Haliburton works with
today's government, which certainly can't be called collectivist.

You have no clue regarding political power versus economic power.

Halliburton is, far and away, the best at what they do. That's why they have
economic power. They've held that status for several years. The difference
between them and the rest of the pack is like the difference between the
1927 Yankees and today's AZ Diamondbacks.

Even gazillionaire Bill Gates was taken to the cleaners in Federal Court.
How much control did they have in making policy?

Speaking of which: the dot.com bubble burst and ensuing stock market slide
from the peak around 12,000 began on (+/-) March 23, 2000, which was the day
the Justice Department announced it's actions against Microsoft.