On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
think
of.  If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding
end and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

  No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
meaningful phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

  No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own,
but do not control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The former
"wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything
they had.

        He should know.  (Corporate power being the elite, wealthy
        upper classes
who own the corporations).

If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.

  So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?

        Well, there's Cuba,

Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
vote for him.

and now Venezuela,

A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
Yeah, real "people
power" there.

*possibly* Bolivia, and lets not
forget Nicaragua, although I wouldn't claim Nicaragua with certainty
since I haven't heard a lot about it recently.

Well it's a "representative democracy" with continuing threats of
violence from leftist thugs.
It's less "left wing" than it was when the Sandinista murderers ran the
economy into the ground
and so more genuinely controlled by "the people".

  How convenient for you that leftism hasn't been tried and
  therefore cannot have
failed.

        Whenever people try to rule themselves there's always a
        panic in the right
wing power centres and they have the economic power to destroy the
left.


Wow, that's such a moronic answer. By definition under a State
whoever has
the political power controls those with the economic power so whether
the "right
wing power centres" wants to destroy "the left" is irrevelant.

You're in AMERICA, and you think government controls the financial

Destroying is always easier than building, unfortunately.

  Of course your definition is not true and has never been true.

        It's absolutely true, unless you insist that the right
        define straw men and
then proceed to criticize.  Of course there's a lot of that going on.

You claimed that Cuba was left wing, which means that what the
people want
doesn't matter a damn when determing left vs. right.

Plenty of governments you would consider "right wing" were doing what
"the people" wanted.

        Not if the people were educated and free.

And the goalpost moving begins. You did not claim that " If the
educated and free
people control what's going on then it's left wing.". You claimed that
" If the people control
what's going on then it's left wing.". Of course the concept of "the
people control" is incoherent
but even so it's clear left wing governments don't have the approval of
free people. Cubans aren't
free, nor increasingly are Venezulans. The restrictions on their
personal liberty are pretty damn
significant. As for "educated" why would an educated person sell their
control over their own
life for being part of "the people" who control everyone else's? Why
would they believe such
a trade is even possible?

 That is certainly not happening in the U.S., nor in Canada today.

But it's happening in Cuba?

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
think
of.  If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding
end and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

  No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
meaningful phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

  No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own,
but do not control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

  By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.  The former
"wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything
they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.  That's how it was in all
fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
a country.  But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.

On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The
former "wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything
they had.

You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized

Well, there's Cuba,

Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
vote for him.

That's U.S. propaganda. They have a very good electoral system in fact.

and now Venezuela,

A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
Yeah, real "people
power" there.

There is. While Bush II, (and his handlers), were focussing on conquering

On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.
The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party, the
fascist party controlled everything they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.

Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
instead of it
being very obviously the other way around?

That's how it was in all
fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
a country.

But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.

Actually the Nazis were mostly supported by the lower class. The
rich were
understandably nervous about them.

Simply a lie.

But they underestimated his lust for power...

The same thing they depended on to control him. They knew of his lust for

On Nov 2, 12:30 am, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I
can think
of.  If they're hiding their intentions then when does the
hiding end and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

  No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is
  a
meaningful phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

  No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically
own, but do not control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

  By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.  The
former "wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party
controlled everything
they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.  That's how it was in
all fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic
asylum than a country.  But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his
early years in power, were fervently supported by corporations,
including American corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.

This is not in the history I have read. Mussolini may have been
supported by some rich people but there were plenty of rich people who
were against him or didn't care.

Horthy (Hungary). I have not studied this subject in detail but a major
driving force recruiting people to fascism was the combination of the
failures of capitalism such as the Great Depression, and the fear of
Communist revolution, which often frightened working-class as well as
middle-class people. The omelet-making in Russia impressed a lot of
people in an unfavorable way.

The Russian Revolution set off sheer panic in corporate circles

Overall it seems like a big mistake to rigidly separate government and
business (corporate) interests, at least after the rise of capitalism at
the end of the Middle Ages. People who are interested in power are
attracted to power structures and tend to rise to the top of them.

...

Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.
 The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party, the
fascist party controlled everything they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.

  Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
instead of it being very obviously the other way around?

        It very obviously was not the other way around.

 Decisions made were for corporate interests and union busting and low
wages were the order of the day.

How is mandating what a firm does, what it can charge and how much

That's how it was in all
fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
a country.

        I wouldn't go along with that either.  Germans are not different than
anybody else, and the fascism that took root there now has a place in the
ruling class of the U.S. as well.  People can be co-opted wherever they are.  
The defence is education and love.

But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.

  Actually the Nazis were mostly supported by the lower class.  The
rich were understandably nervous about them.

        Simply a lie.

But they underestimated his lust for power...

        The same thing they depended on to control him.  They knew of his lust for
power in the U.S. and actually supported him for a while by not joining the
war.

 It was only when Japan attacked the U.S. and was allied with Germany
that the U.S. joined in.  Even in those days Nazism was attractive to the
rulers in the U.S.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Nov 2, 12:30 am, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:



On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
think
of.  If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding
end and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

  No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
meaningful phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

  No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own,
but do not control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

  By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.  The former
"wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything
they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.  That's how it was in all
fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
a country.  But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.

This is not in the history I have read.  Mussolini may
have been supported by some rich people but there
were plenty of rich people who were against him or
didn't care.  The same seems to have been true of
Horthy (Hungary).  I have not studied this subject in
detail but a major driving force recruiting people to
fascism was the combination of the failures of
capitalism such as the Great Depression, and the
fear of Communist revolution, which often frightened
working-class as well as middle-class people.  The
omelet-making in Russia impressed a lot of people
in an unfavorable way.

Overall it seems like a big mistake to rigidly
separate government and business (corporate)
interests, at least after the rise of capitalism at
the end of the Middle Ages.

 People who are
interested in power are attracted to power
structures and tend to rise to the top of them.

Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:08 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ....

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the
State. The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party,
the fascist party controlled everything they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.

Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
instead of it being very obviously the other way around?

It very obviously was not the other way around.

  Could the corporation heads have government ministers who they
disagreed
with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim?  No.  Then it was obviously
not the
other way around.

        Read the history books, people.  Go back to the original stuff and don't
let this propagandist rebuild history.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

  By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.  The
former "wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything
they had.

        You got it backwards.  By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.

 It's online somewhere.  
Just google it.

Wow, doesn't even give a link to the book that doesn't address the

Well, there's Cuba,

  Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
vote for him.

        That's U.S. propaganda.

 They have a very good electoral system in fact.
where money can't influence the vote like in the U.S.

 Those in power in the
States are afraid that if word gets out they might have to do this also and
so we get lies about Cuba.

So then name an opposition candidate in Cuba.

and now Venezuela,

  A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
Yeah, real "people power" there.

        There is.  While Bush II, (and his handlers), were focussing on conquering
Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for heroin, Latin America continued the fight
for their own freedom and in a few places like Venezuela they got it.

Yeah your credibility went when you called Cuba democratic, but

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Nov 3, 12:08 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the
State. The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party,
the fascist party controlled everything they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.

Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
instead of it being very obviously the other way around?

It very obviously was not the other way around.

Could the corporation heads have government ministers who they
disagreed
with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim? No. Then it was obviously
not the
other way around.

Read the history books, people. Go back to the original stuff and don't

On Nov 4, 12:14 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:08 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca
wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it
is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the
State. The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist
party, the fascist party controlled everything they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.

Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
instead of it being very obviously the other way around?

It very obviously was not the other way around.

Could the corporation heads have government ministers who they
disagreed
with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim? No. Then it was obviously
not the
other way around.

Read the history books, people. Go back to the original stuff and don't
let this propagandist rebuild history.

And what history books tells you that corporations got a good deal
from the
fascists? I ask again, Could the corporation heads have government
ministers
who they disagreed with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim? If you
know the
answer you know who was in charge, if you don't you know nothing about
the subject.

On Nov 2, 11:59 pm, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The
former "wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything
they had.

You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.

Right, so none of the books on the actual period support your theory
do they?

And in fact of course anything about GWB wouldn't support your theory
of
corporations controlling government either. GWB has been a disaster
for almost
all corporations in America. Think Detroit wanted oil prices sky
high?

It was a small group of special interests that were pulling George's

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:36:49 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:30 am, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I
can think
of.  If they're hiding their intentions then when does the
hiding end and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

  No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is
  a
meaningful phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

  No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically
own, but do not control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

  By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.  The
former "wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party
controlled everything
they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.  That's how it was in
all fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic
asylum than a country.  But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his
early years in power, were fervently supported by corporations,
including American corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.

This is not in the history I have read.  Mussolini may have been
supported by some rich people but there were plenty of rich people who
were against him or didn't care.  

I was talking specifically of corporations, not "rich people" although
it's understandable that Americans would conflate the two.  Mussolini
himself said "fascism is best described as corparatism".

The same seems to have been true of> Horthy (Hungary).  I have not studied this subject in detail but a major
driving force recruiting people to fascism was the combination of the
failures of capitalism such as the Great Depression, and the fear of
Communist revolution, which often frightened working-class as well as
middle-class people.  The omelet-making in Russia impressed a lot of
people in an unfavorable way.

The Russian Revolution set off sheer panic in corporate circles
throughout the west.  What if communism WORKED?  Would it SPREAD?  They
needed a counter agent, and fascism was that counter agent.  

Overall it seems like a big mistake to rigidly separate government and
business (corporate) interests, at least after the rise of capitalism at
the end of the Middle Ages.  People who are interested in power are
attracted to power structures and tend to rise to the top of them.

They should be somewhat adversarial for the same reason that church and
state should be somewhat adversarial: to maintain a balance of power, and
not let one of the three subjugate the people.

Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:59 pm, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.  The
former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything they had.

You got it backwards.  By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.

  Right, so none of the books on the actual period support your theory
do they?

        Rise and Fall of the Third Reich does.

I doubt that very much. If it does feel free to quote.

And in fact of course anything about GWB wouldn't support your theory
of corporations controlling government either.  GWB has been a disaster
for almost all corporations in America.  Think Detroit wanted oil prices sky
high?

        It was a small group of special interests that were pulling George's
strings.  They were very corporate.  If was very fascist.

What, they were more corporate than Detroit? Do you think that

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:14 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:08 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d... at (no spam) dead.com
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca
wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it
is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
...

By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the
State. The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist
party, the fascist party controlled everything they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.

Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
instead of it being very obviously the other way around?

It very obviously was not the other way around.

Could the corporation heads have government ministers who they
disagreed
with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim?  No.  Then it was obviously
not the
other way around.

Read the history books, people.  Go back to the original stuff and don't
let this propagandist rebuild history.

  And what history books tells you that corporations got a good deal
from the fascists?  I ask again,  Could the corporation heads have government
ministers who they disagreed with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim?  If you
know the answer you know who was in charge, if you don't you know nothing about
the subject.

        I know the truth and I'm not trying to lie about it.

 Fascism is when the corporations control the government.

 Socialism is when the government serves the people.

 Communism is when the people *are* the communal government.

Yeah right, explain how that is even possible.

        If you don't believe me, (which you do, but you won't admit it),

remember
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
        If you want to argue, Argue with Benito.

I have told you what that quote actually means. The fact that

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)