"DN" wrote in message ...
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
om...
"DN" wrote in message
news:3e4Ob.15797$Wa.1109@news-

SNIP
Fascist, as spelled out in my Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, which
says
in part ".... representing a nationalist reaction against socialism
..........etc " Now I could read much into that, but refrain this time
round.

Interesting edit of a definition. Here's what the American Heritage
Dictionary says is Fascism: "a) A system of government marked by
centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic
controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,
and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b) A
political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system
of government."

I prefer an Oxford based opinion than the alternative you offer above. Not
for any anti American sentiments some may accuse me of harbouring you
understand, but because I trust the scholarship from that ancient seat of
learning to the more modern approach to meaning coming from a much younger
tradition. Actually, if one needs to be mischievous politically, quoting
Chambers definition, as a manifesto for Australian right wing parties, they
would I think, gain a few more votes !!!!!!!! (and boy oh boy, will they
need them this next election, if the last 4 Morgan Polls are to be believed)

Nothing about opposition to socialism.

That's kind of neat, *nothing about opposition to socialism*

That's right. The definition of fascism has nothing to do with
opposition to socialism, as you tried to claim. Your somewhat silly
attempt to imply that anyone opposed to socialism must be a fascist
kind of fell on its face.

; can I just mention a few Socialist *Institutions* in Australia ?

Go ahead. But they have nothing to do with that definition. Quick
twist in the train of logic to duck out of what you said.

Wheat Board;Wool Board; Milk Board ;Onion Board; Potato Board; Meat Board ;
Egg Board etc etc which some may claim are utterly necessary for the good
governance of the economy and the maintenance of our standard of living,

Yes, "some claim" that. In the US most of these types of institutions
have been done away with. Including the "fair price" controls that
they put on products. Guess what? Prices have gone down, quality has
gone up, production vastly increased. Consumers benefitted
dramatically.

So "some" can "claim" all they'd like. They aren't necessary for good
governance. They damage choice and inhibit competition.

even though it cuts right across Capitalist values - choice and competition
for example. Same in the USA.

No, not same. Not at all.

Why do we have to keep traipsing to Washington because policy
protection of the farmers in the USA? AND this is Capitalism at work

No it is not. Protectionism is not capitalism. In fact, free trade or
protected trade have nothing to do with capitalism one way or another.

Capitalism is where property and assets are privately owned and the
owners benefit from the earnings generated by those assets and
investments are made based on that capital.

Free trade, protectionism, commodity boards, etc. have nothing
whatsoever to do with whether or not an economy is capitalist or
socialist.

Actually, socialism (by virtue of the necessity for central control)
is far more subject to abuse by those in power than any other system.
The pseudo-intellectuals who keep saying that Russia and China
represent abuses of socialism and communism because of their massive
central governments forget that having a massive central government is
the only way that socialism can function over the long run.

I am in your debt for that little homely. But you really are on shakey
ground. Have you forgot for instance a fellow called Joh who ran his State
without abuse ?

Who cares? You're ducking out of the issue.

There are others, but at this stage, let's not get into some
of this painful history, although if provoked, we could explore other States
over the past 50 years, who have a great deal to answer for. This also begs
the question "Tchiowa"; have you ever thought how much you are paying today,
for those giant abuses of the past? (the money has to come from somewhere
and a tax payer is the first port of call)

That's right, the tax payer pays all. But, again, this has nothing to
do with capitalism or socialism.