To summarize it briefly, I guess Facism is almost inherent in the technique of mass production especially if held in private hands.

Response: Hardly. Privately held wealth subject to democratic limitations is the very definition of social democracy.

Question: was Stalin a Facist? Those in charge of mass production were party loyalists and government controlled the means of production, but there's no question these communjist industrialists had influence. Witness the willingness of the government to permit the destruction of the environment and "the people" to further production.

Response: No he was not a fascist. He was a totalitarian and a communist. The state actually did own and control the means of production. There are evil forms of government that are not fascist... the Soviet Union surely qualified as a distinct one.

Even accepting your notion of an extreme and broad degree of influence of corporations on US policy (a view I've never found echoed among those who've partcipated in the political process including myself), a potential difference between government control of "mass production" and private control is that the latter has more potential for conflicting or countervailing expressions of interests. Industry does by no means speak with one voice in the halls of Congress, and that voice is typically adressed to very narrow points of interest, rather than exercising any broad influence where if tried it tends to fall flat.

Response: From my perspective that's what I'd expect to hear from a participant in the political process. I suspect you of being unaware of the extent to which you have allowed yourself not to see the reality all around you. I realize that may sound like an unfair accusation (the fact that she denies she is a witch proves that she is a witch!)... but nonetheless I find it incredible when insiders deny the extent to which I perceive Washington and State House politics to be owned and operated by corporate America... each sector having its own agenda to be sure... but agreeing on the broad outlines of how America should be run in the interests of stockholders rather than citizens... on the one dollar one vote principle rather than the one person one vote principle.

As to your notion that Facist tendencies declined during the Roosevelt period, you ignore the fact that America was then more regimented, a hallmark of Facism, then before or since. One might be sympathetic to Roosevelt, who, in desperate circumstances, tried to adapt something that seemed to be working in Germany and Italy, but turning it on its head as you do is denying the obvious.

Response: That's a Goldbergian argument, equating socialist and communist regimination with fascist regimentation. Roosevelt battled against domestic fascists, and expanded the government's role in the economy in classic early 20th century "socialist" directions, albeit very weakly.

From what you write, I'd suggest that the only reason you'd decline to call America Facist from inception is the lack of mass prodution and big industry for part of its history. Surely a more generic term: "Evil Empire", fits nicely don't you think?

Response: I don't think the idea of fascism makes much sense as a political description prior to the 20th century. There are various reasons for that... the role of mass media being one of them.... the role of centralized government and its control by industrial and private enterprises... The U.S. was certainly "imperial" on the American continent... and begining most notably in the Phillipines and Cuba, began to become an international imperialist in the late 19th and early 20th century... but no, fascism doesn't seem to apply until around the 1920s. Even then we did not become fascist... but elements or our society began to push us in a fascist direction.

Unfortunately, your definition suggesting industrialists uber alles doesn't really fit Nazi Germany or Facist Italy. Industrialists in those countries, especially Germany, were subservient in the extreme to the national will embodied in the National Socialist Party. Do you really think German industrialists were behind WWII? Hitler was good for business, and therefore had early and as it turned out naive support from industrialists, but I doubt you can come up with any convincing evidence he was pushed to war by the private sector industrialists.

Response: Agree and disagree. Yes he was not pushed to war explicitly by them but no his rule was not possible without them. It was an alliance of mutual need, mutual perspectives, and mutual interests. Was there support "naive"? Only in light of the outcome of the war. He and they, like Bush and (Exxon/Verizon/Fox etc.), were peas in a pod.... the political level and the business level sharing world views, interests, and plans, and willing to use the media and the military to achieve their goals.