>them, laying their core bare to examination. Yet, why quibble? If I
>have misconstrued some factual aspect of your beliefs, then I would
>certainly hope you would be so kind as to correct me.
Well, I was too polite to bring it up at the time, but I take your point that politeness is sometimes an unkindness so I'll take up your invitation.
In the first sentence of your first post, you made the claim that:
>"fascism" refers to a form of socialism with ostensibly private
>ownership of capital, whose function is nonetheless directed by the
>State.
Actually, "socialism" technically refers to the social ownership and control of the means of production (or "capital" as you put it.) That's what it says in my dictionary, the Australian Macquarie dictionary, though other versions of the language may vary slightly. Hopefully not to the extent that the definition of "socialism" overlaps with that of "fascism" though. So a social system entailing the private ownership of the means of production would not technically be any form of socialism. I'm sure this was just a misunderstanding on your part, I hope we've cleared that up?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas