Further on Fascism ...

I read this twice ...

Take the example of nearly any European fascist state from the last century, and you will see each one has a disproportionate degree of industrial control lying with national, industrial cartels. The control of these cartels (called "corporations" in my poli-sci texts) lies within the controling party of the fascist state... but only through the leaders of those cartels being recruited (or founding) members of the fascist organization. This membership in the controling group (we'll call it the "party", for ease of use) allows nearly unlimited ability to control markets and resources for the expressed profit of the elite, and not for the state or organization.I

Im not saying thematically you're wrong, but let me challenge you on this point (and bare in my mind it is my assertion that Soviet Communism, as practiced, was but another brand of fascism). If a ruling party comes to power then assumes dictatorial control, as did the Nazis, and then recruits captains of industry as means of elite, exclusionary profit, then haven't these "captains" as it were, simply joined the party post take over as a means of maintaining their status? To be more specific, Nazi founders, be it Hitler, or his cofounder which he later dispatched, weren't industrial titans at the onset, they merely assumed governmental control then asserted control over "business" via the later induction of actual corpotate leaders into their party. This, in my view, would be party control of business rather then business control of the state. And in fact there was a Reich position that directed the business community. His name escapes me now but he was on trial at Nuremberg. This would be party control of business in my view, versus business control of the state.

I think that is what you also asserted, the later induction of these corporate leaders lead to exclusionary, elite profits. But, if that is your contention, and I agree it is acurrate, then defining fascism as "business control of the state", as opposed to the communist state control of bussiness" is simply inaccurate historically or definitionally. Yes, the Nazis used their eventual control (in a post government take over through Weimer elections then undemocratic entrenchment) of business for their own aims and ambitions, but to say that this is fascism as defined by "business control of the state" seems, to reiterate, innacurate. It seems more appropriate to label it "single party control of government and corprate direction."

****

Let me add something regarding this extended comment ...

In addition to the several “facts” of fascism I listed in my posts, I need to add this one… that a fascist state focuses its efforts and policies to “right” the perceived wrongs perpetrated on a society or culture by another group or society...

While I admit that the nastalgic references to a "return" to past empires seems strangely embedded in all of your historical references to nation governments typically referred to as "fascist", the reasoning for a need for such a return is without question based on your above statement - a need to right perceived wrongs perpetrated by a specific group. The perverbial "them" totaliarian regimes always refer to. Given that this inherint need to get "them" in order to right perceived wrongs is an aspect so glaring that you found it neccessary to add another post on the subject, let me point out that this EXACT scenario played out as Lenin drew up his list of those that needed to, well, "go." The beugoise, the elitists, the monarchists, THEY were the segment of society that had wronged Mother Russia and Leninist communism sought to right that wrong. It didn't have a nastalgic theme, noted. However, since the impetus is on "change", whether it's nastalgicly based in a want to "revert" back to past glories, or change thematically articulated and executed as forging new societal ground, it is still change based on "they" have wronged "us", and now we will get "them", and change our current course.

So, again I claim that fascism is more aptly afffiliated definitionally with catch-all terms such as "totalitarianism" and "despotism" rather then trying to define it in specific economic terms and as the polar opposite of communism.

By the way, I was right about the Giants ... he,he.
FR

PS> for some reason the spell check wouldn't activate when clicked, so I did my best.