cascadian

Now you're mixing your definitions by switching National Socialism to Fascism.

It can be argued that National Socialism is a subset of fascism, but with this broad view of fascism we see a large variance of economic activity that cannot be summed up as Socialism.

Fascism often had state control of the economy especially when it came to the activity of individuals, but large corporations were actually valued and pampered. Mussolini's government showed a wide range over time from laissez faire capitalism to miscroscopic state control, but he never eliminated private property as a concept.

Fascism was touted as a "third way" between socialism and capitalism. It rejected the idea of class war and any Marxist tenets that might distract from nationalism. It was intrinsically tied to nationalism (unlike Marxist Socialism) which meant race in Germany and simply "the state" in Italy.

If you want to throw Fascism together with Marxist Socialism (as opposed to the philosophy of the National Socialist party of Germany) then you might as well throw feudalism in there as well, and the dictionary out the window while you're at it.

A "counter-coup", how so?

I think a situation like Pakistan would be more likely. Only it would be commies at the gate instead of the mullahs.

This whole idea you have that democracy has to be saved from itself is rather dangerous. Now some democracies are better than others. Some are better at respecting the rule of law and the rights of the minority, but replacing it with military force is never an improvement.

Regardless, you apparently don't think that coups are anti-democratic in themselves. So how was Chavez showing contempt for the democratic process and his opponents not?

I recognize that you have dropped support for Musharraf. That's why I used the past tense. I mentioned him because it wasn't the coup you had problems with.

__________________
"Fear is the mind killer."
~Bene Gesserit