Marx's Theory of History

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I doubt. As an example look at America's federal system. Power only goes one way, from the states to the central government. I think something similar will happen to our economy. There are already many other governments with a heavy hand in their respective economy. I think America, the beacon of capitalism, is heading down that route.

Anyways, here's Carl Marx's view on it

link

The Stages of History...

Primitative Communism...
The First Stage: is usually called Primitive Communism. It has the following characteristics.

Shared property: there is no concept of ownership beyond individual possessions. All is shared by the tribe to ensure its survival.
Hunting and gathering: tribal societies have yet to develop large scale agriculture and so their survival is a daily struggle.
Proto-democracy: there is usually no concept of "leadership" yet. So tribes are led by the best warrior if there is war, the best diplomat if they have steady contact with other tribes and so forth.
The primitive communism stage most likely begins soon after the dawn of humanity itself, at the stage where fire is developed, and communal living therefore becomes more convenient. Primitive communist societies tend to be very small, consisting of a maximum of a few hundred members, with size being dependent upon the environment. In this stage humanity is no different from any other animal, in that it has not yet found ways to bend nature to its will.

This stage ends with the development of private property, especially with the development of large scale agriculture. This in turn produces productive property, such as cattle and slaves.


Slave Society...

The Second Stage: may be called Slave Society, considered to be the beginning of "class society" where private property appears.

Class: here the idea of class appears. There is always a slave-owning ruling class and the slaves themselves.
Statism: the state develops during this stage as a tool for the slave-owners to use and control the slaves.
Agriculture: man learns to cultivate plants and animals on a large enough scale to support large populations.
Democracy and Authoritarianism: these opposites develop at the same stage. Democracy arises first with the development of the republican city-state, followed by the totalitarian empire.
Private Property: citizens now own more than personal property. Land ownership is especially important during a time of agricultural development.
The slave-owning class "own" the land and slaves, which are the main means of producing wealth, whilst the vast majority have very little or nothing. The propertyless included the slave class, slaves who work for no money, and in most cases women, who were also dispossessed during this period. From a Marxist perspective, slave society collapsed when it exhausted itself. The need to keep conquering more slaves created huge problems, such as maintaining the vast empire that resulted (i.e. The Roman Empire). It is ultimately the aristocracy born in this epoch that demolishes it and forces society to step onto the next stage.


Feudalism...

The Third Stage: may be called Feudalism it appears after slave society collapses. This was most obvious during the European Dark Ages when society went from slavery to feudalism.

Aristocracy: the state is ruled by monarchs who inherit their positions. Or at times marry or conquer their ways into leadership.
Theocracy: this is a time of largely religious rule. When there is only one religion in the land and it's organizations affect all parts of daily life.
Hereditary classes: castes can sometimes form and one's class is determined at birth with no form of advancement. This was the case with India.
Nation-state: nations are formed from the remnants of the fallen empires. Sometimes to rebuild themselves into empires once more. Such as England's transition from a province to an empire.
During feudalism there are many classes such as kings, lords, and serfs, some little more than slaves. Most of these inherit their titles for good or ill. At the same time that societies must create all these new classes, trade with other nation-states increases rapidly. This catalyzes the creation of the merchant class.

Out of the merchants' riches, a capitalist class emerges within this feudal society. However there are immediate conflicts with the aristocracy. The old feudal kings and lords cannot accept the new social changes the capitalists want for fear of destabilizing or reducing their power base, among various other reasons that are not all tied to power or money.

This proto-capitalist and capitalist classes are driven by the profit motive but are prevented from developing further profits by the nature of feudal society where, for instance, the serfs are tied to the land and cannot become industrial workers and wage earners. Marx says, Then begins an epoch of social revolution (The French Revolution of 1789, Cromwell in Britain, etc) since the social and political organization of feudal society (or the property relations of feudalism) is preventing the development of the capitalists' productive forces.


Capitalism...

Marx pays special attention to this stage in human development. The bulk of his work is devoted to exploring the mechanisms of capitalism, which in western society classically arose "red in tooth and claw" from feudal society in a revolutionary movement.

Capitalism may be considered the Fourth Stage in the sequence. It appears after the bourgeois revolution when the capitalists (or their merchant predecessors) overthrow the feudal system. Capitalism is categorized by the following:

Free Market economy: in capitalism the entire economy is guided by market forces. Supporters of Laissez-faire economics argue that there should be little or no intervention from the government under capitalism. Marxists, however, such as Lenin in his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, argue that the capitalist government is a powerful instrument for the furtherance of capitalism and the capitalist nation-state, particularly in the conquest of markets abroad.
Private property: the means of production are no longer in the hands of the monarchy and its nobles, but rather they are controlled by the capitalists. The capitalists control the means of production through commercial enterprises (such as corporations) which aim to maximize profit.
Parliamentary democracy: the capitalists tend to govern through an elected centralized parliament or congress, rather than under an autocracy. Capitalist (bourgeois) democracy, although it may be extended to the whole population, does not necessarily lead to universal suffrage. Historically it has excluded (by force, segregation, legislation or other means) sections of the population such as women, slaves, ex-slaves, people of color or those on low income. The government acts on behalf of, and is controlled by, the capitalists through various methods.
Wages: in capitalism, workers are rewarded according to their contract with their employer. However their hours or rate of work are often subject to increase outside their immediate control, and their wage is, in any case, but a fraction of the true value produced by their labor. The unpaid labor of the working class is the essential component of the profit for the capitalist, because the worker is not paid the true value of his labor: he is exploited
Warfare: capitalism spreads from the wealthiest countries to the poorest as capitalists seek to expand their influence and raise their profits. This is done directly through war, the threat of war, or the export of capital. The capitalist's control over the state can thus play an essential part in the development of capitalism, to the extent the state directs the warfare or other foreign intervention.
Monopolistic tendencies: the natural, unrestrained market forces will create monopolies from the most successful and/or vicious commercial entities.
In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom, work for the capitalists for wages. The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez-faire practices around the world. In the capitalist-controlled parliament laws are made to protect wealth and the wealthy.

But, according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings - inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall. The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces. The rest is surplus value - the capitalist's profit, which Marx calls the "unpaid labour of the working class." The capitalists are forced by competition to attempt to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates conflict between the classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class. The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class.

In the view of classical Marxism, the struggles of the working class against the attacks of the capitalist class lead the working class to struggle to establish its own collective control over production - the basis of socialist society. Marx believed that capitalism always leads to monopolies and leads the people to poverty; yet the fewer the restrictions on the free market, (e.g. from the state and trade unions) the sooner it finds itself in crisis.


Socialism...

After the working class gains class consciousness and mounts a revolution against the capitalists, Communism, which may be considered the Fifth Stage, will be attained, if the workers are successful.

Lenin divided the period following the overthrow of capitalism into two stages: first socialism, and then later, once the last vestiges of the old capitalist ways have withered away, communism (Lenin: The State and Revolution). Lenin based his 1917 work, The State and Revolution, on a thorough study of the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx uses the terms the "first phase" of communism and the "higher phase" of communism, but Lenin points to later remarks of Engels which suggest that what people commonly think of as socialism equates to Marx's "first phase" of communism.

Socialism may be categorized by the following:

Decentralized planned economy: without the market, production will be directed by the workers themselves through communes or workers' elected councils.
Common property: the means of production are taken from the hands of a few capitalists and put in the hands of the workers. This translates into the democratic communes controlling the means of production.
Council democracy: Marx, basing himself on a thorough study of Paris Commune, believed that the workers would govern themselves though system of communes. He called this the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, overthrowing the dictatorship (governance) of capital, would democratically plan production and the resources of the planet.
Labor vouchers: Marx explained that, since socialism emerges from capitalism, it would be "stamped with its birthmarks." Economically this translates into the individual worker being awarded according to the amount of labor he contributes to society. Each worker would be given a certificate verifying his contribution which he could then exchange for goods...

Communism...

Some time after socialism is established society leaps forward, and everyone has plenty of personal possessions, but no one can exploit another person for private gain through the ownership of vast monopolies, and so forth. Classes are thus abolished, and class society ended. Eventually the state will "wither away" and become obsolete, as people administer their own lives without the need for governments. Thus, communism is established, which has the following features:

Statelessness: there is no government or nations any more.
Classlessness: all social classes disappear, everyone works for everyone else.
Propertylessness: there is no money, all goods are free to be consumed by anyone that needs them...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Marx is a good example of someone who understood a lot but 'a little knowledge is dangerous', he got big things wrong.

This is just nonsense:

Propertylessness: there is no money, all goods are free to be consumed by anyone that needs them...

Sure, on a small scale, there are people who are more altruistic; parents sacrifice for their kids, monks swear off wealth, wealthy tycoons sometimes become philanthropists.

But most people are always happy to get more - do you want that beachfront mansion? That Jet airplane? That original Bougereau painting?

He did have some insight - for examples, studies show that money has little impact on people's happiness above about $50K a year, but plenty below that.

He may have hit on something that describes how Gates and Buffet choose to use their fortunes for the public good, but he clearly takes it way too far as a system.

But just like H. G. Wells had a lot of insight but was nonsensical about the science of going to the moon, Marx wrote in a primitive time.

Unfortunately, discussion about his theories is pretty much harmful and idiotic now, it's as absurd as if our space policy was still debated in terms of H. G. Wells' plans.

Marx really has no place dominating any economic discussion today - though bits and pieces are useful, if they can be used properly.

We need a corollary to Godwin's rule, that economic discussions which mention Marx or Communism are lost, unless it's used responsibly.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Marx is a good example of someone who understood a lot but 'a little knowledge is dangerous', he got big things wrong.

This is just nonsense:

Propertylessness: there is no money, all goods are free to be consumed by anyone that needs them...

Sure, on a small scale, there are people who are more altruistic; parents sacrifice for their kids, monks swear off wealth, wealthy tycoons sometimes become philanthropists.

But most people are always happy to get more - do you want that beachfront mansion? That Jet airplane? That original Bougereau painting?

He did have some insight - for examples, studies show that money has little impact on people's happiness above about $50K a year, but plenty below that.

He may have hit on something that describes how Gates and Buffet choose to use their fortunes for the public good, but he clearly takes it way too far as a system.

But just like H. G. Wells had a lot of insight but was nonsensical about the science of going to the moon, Marx wrote in a primitive time.

Unfortunately, discussion about his theories is pretty much harmful and idiotic now, it's as absurd as if our space policy was still debated in terms of H. G. Wells' plans.

Marx really has no place dominating any economic discussion today - though bits and pieces are useful, if they can be used properly.

We need a corollary to Godwin's rule, that economic discussions which mention Marx or Communism are lost, unless it's used responsibly.

So why don't you answer my question in the summary?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I agree wholly with the thread summary and Dari's first paragraph. In almost all cases we see those with power aim to get more, and governments are no different, from town governments up to the federal one. Also, it's plain to see, that the united states are, at least legally, becoming far more united. The notion of states rights is quickly becoming a romantic memory, for those who even care about them.

It's unfortunate to see that what has made the US strong, or at least always been held by most as its source of strength, namely self-direction and somewhat of a darwinian approach to economics, is being eroded, if not at a bleeding pace, at least at a steady and predictable one, this in lockstep with the rest of the western world. I think the US' lag in this is part of the reason it is still ahead of the rest of the west economically, but it's a reality, not a cliche, that extra government fat and layers reduce economic agility and ambitious motivations that workers and businesses may otherwise have. As a branch of the governments existence is by fiat and not necessarily performance, it's human nature that those in it will lose their will to try as if their job depended on their performance because in fact it doesn't.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Looking at history in broad strokes, the single biggest determinant of what brings down governments and economies has always been the gulf between the haves, and the have-nots.

The roman revolution strikes me as particularly analogous - there was a wealthy few who upheld the principle of the republic, because it largely worked for them. But having gained so much wealth from conquest, and having imported so many slaves, the common free men were largely unable to find work. The wealthy gave a few concessions over time, but it was never enough to fully sate the populace. Then good ol julius caesar came along, trumped himself as a reformer, and with the backing of the people, had great support and basically took over with relative ease. He then went ahead and enacted a ton of reforms that were great for the common people. Despite being conciliatory to the wealthy that he basically drove out of the city, they decided to "liberate" the people from the "tyrant", and his assassins were genuinely confused as to why the common people didnt triumph the "saviors of the republic." This set the stage for the monarchs (aka tyrants) to basically hold power for the next few hundred years.

And despite how much we dislike the idea of a tyrant, by and large, the people were MUCH better off once the emperors came into power, as most seemed to realize their power stood only so far as the people would let them have it.

The point is - the guys on top can stand on principle for only so long. As long as conditions on the ground arent working for the mob, theyll eventually get overthrown. This has happened time and time again throughout the centuries. So its hard for me to be sympathetic to the whole "founding fathers" cause, because the principle needs to align with reality. We're far from a revolution, as that generally requires people starving in the street, but those in power who stand merely on principle, and not on reality, do so at their peril.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,749
6,319
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree wholly with the thread summary and Dari's first paragraph. In almost all cases we see those with power aim to get more, and governments are no different, from town governments up to the federal one. Also, it's plain to see, that the united states are, at least legally, becoming far more united. The notion of states rights is quickly becoming a romantic memory, for those who even care about them.

It's unfortunate to see that what has made the US strong, or at least always been held by most as its source of strength, namely self-direction and somewhat of a darwinian approach to economics, is being eroded, if not at a bleeding pace, at least at a steady and predictable one, this in lockstep with the rest of the western world. I think the US' lag in this is part of the reason it is still ahead of the rest of the west economically, but it's a reality, not a cliche, that extra government fat and layers reduce economic agility and ambitious motivations that workers and businesses may otherwise have. As a branch of the governments existence is by fiat and not necessarily performance, it's human nature that those in it will lose their will to try as if their job depended on their performance because in fact it doesn't.

The US is ahead Economically because of Natural Resuorces, not Economic Principle.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Once the government gets power, you think it'll ever relinquish it?

I don't think this is very related to Marx. To answer the question more generally, power exists to varying degrees largely based on the level of organization, whether it's called 'government' or not. Government takes various forms - it can be just an agent of the already powerful - such as the monarchy in renaissance England; the government can sometimes also distribute power more, as with the French and American revolutions.

The way you ask the question raises a concern of a paranoid version of government as a sort of 'bogeyman' out for evil power over the people.

The issue is less about how much power government has, than about whose interests the government represents.

A Jefferson or a Lincoln or a Kennedy largely tried to do right by the public; some other presidents - not so much.

Go look at Kennedy on government, and you will see him being a spokesman for an active government to do more for the public; he wanted to expand it, such as his Medicare expansion. And yet his government was a fraction of later presidents and he was also a believer in lean, efficient government. Not a contradiction.

Kennedy also was opposed to the big tax shelter for big oil making him a big enemy of the Bushes among others, but a policy like that spoke to who government represented.

So in short to your question, there are competing pressures; everyone, government or not, tends to like getting more power.

But note that the presidents who have spoken the loudest against 'big government' have overseen many of its biggest exansions.

Usually, government tends to try to preserve power it's gained, but it can go the other way, largely because of democracy.

The days of revolution are over, though.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree wholly with the thread summary and Dari's first paragraph. In almost all cases we see those with power aim to get more, and governments are no different, from town governments up to the federal one. Also, it's plain to see, that the united states are, at least legally, becoming far more united. The notion of states rights is quickly becoming a romantic memory, for those who even care about them.

It's unfortunate to see that what has made the US strong, or at least always been held by most as its source of strength, namely self-direction and somewhat of a darwinian approach to economics, is being eroded, if not at a bleeding pace, at least at a steady and predictable one, this in lockstep with the rest of the western world. I think the US' lag in this is part of the reason it is still ahead of the rest of the west economically, but it's a reality, not a cliche, that extra government fat and layers reduce economic agility and ambitious motivations that workers and businesses may otherwise have. As a branch of the governments existence is by fiat and not necessarily performance, it's human nature that those in it will lose their will to try as if their job depended on their performance because in fact it doesn't.

The US is ahead Economically because of Natural Resuorces, not Economic Principle.

This is false on so many levels. We are simply more efficient, work harder as a whole. We have the best economic and federal environment for innovating, creating new technologies, businesses, etc. You know how difficult it is to start a company in Great Britain? You have no idea...Attributing it all to natural resources is just plain bitter envy.

Maybe when the crazy Europeans get us to legislate ourselves into oblivion like they have, then they'll be competitive with us again. They're just frustrated.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,749
6,319
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree wholly with the thread summary and Dari's first paragraph. In almost all cases we see those with power aim to get more, and governments are no different, from town governments up to the federal one. Also, it's plain to see, that the united states are, at least legally, becoming far more united. The notion of states rights is quickly becoming a romantic memory, for those who even care about them.

It's unfortunate to see that what has made the US strong, or at least always been held by most as its source of strength, namely self-direction and somewhat of a darwinian approach to economics, is being eroded, if not at a bleeding pace, at least at a steady and predictable one, this in lockstep with the rest of the western world. I think the US' lag in this is part of the reason it is still ahead of the rest of the west economically, but it's a reality, not a cliche, that extra government fat and layers reduce economic agility and ambitious motivations that workers and businesses may otherwise have. As a branch of the governments existence is by fiat and not necessarily performance, it's human nature that those in it will lose their will to try as if their job depended on their performance because in fact it doesn't.

The US is ahead Economically because of Natural Resuorces, not Economic Principle.

This is false on so many levels. We are simply more efficient, work harder as a whole. We have the best economic and federal environment for innovating, creating new technologies, businesses, etc. You know how difficult it is to start a company in Great Britain? You have no idea...Attributing it all to natural resources is just plain bitter envy.

Maybe when the crazy Europeans get us to legislate ourselves into oblivion like they have, then they'll be competitive with us again. They're just frustrated.

Now, you are, but what got you here was Natural Resources. That said, nations like Japan, China, and South Korea will continue to expand and eventually overtake the US Economcally. Part of the US's current problems is Ideological Blindness to the serious flaws of its' Economic System. It only appears superior due to the USs' past Natural Resource Wealth, not because it is indeed superor.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
The goverments main job is to gain more power then the previous person had. And they Rarely give up any power at all. Bush and Obama are proof of that.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I believe one of the founding fathers spoke about this as well. That govt begets more govt and there really isnt a mechanism for the people to not vote themselves more govt which is a natural tendency.

It is obvious where we are heading. Though I dont think we will see socialism in this country. I think we will are in the middle of a fascist revolution.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
The natural tendency is for governments to get bigger and more powerful over time, unless something (like a revolution or war) derails this tendency. Ultimately, governments never seem to get smaller, they only grow more bloated and more intrusive. We're seeing it happen at a super-accelerated pace right before our eyes.

Heck, you can't go for a stroll in your yard without being subject to hundreds of government regulations and restrictions. More and more laws year year means more and more government influence, at every level of government.
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy


Heck, you can't go for a stroll in your yard without being subject to hundreds of government regulations and restrictions. More and more laws year year means more and more government influence, at every level of government.



And it seems no one cares enought to voice their opinion to their rep/senator or voice their opinion with a their votes.

It also seems everyone wants more regulation for ideas/activities that don't interest them. So in the end they don't see they are helping to enlarge the government control.

This is why I posted the thread earlier about Texas's government not passing any bills this year yet, I would like to see that at a National level. One or two bills written into law is plenty for a years time.

Why can't they take time to review and test how their stupid ideas are going to affect long term society.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: mooseracing
Originally posted by: PokerGuy


Heck, you can't go for a stroll in your yard without being subject to hundreds of government regulations and restrictions. More and more laws year year means more and more government influence, at every level of government.



And it seems no one cares enought to voice their opinion to their rep/senator or voice their opinion with a their votes.

It also seems everyone wants more regulation for ideas/activities that don't interest them. So in the end they don't see they are helping to enlarge the government control.

This is why I posted the thread earlier about Texas's government not passing any bills this year yet, I would like to see that at a National level. One or two bills written into law is plenty for a years time.

Why can't they take time to review and test how their stupid ideas are going to affect long term society.

I agree. More often than not the current laws are sufficient if they are carried out prudently. But people tend to take things literally these days and react to a new crisis with new legislation. It's dumb.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
I believe one of the founding fathers spoke about this as well. That govt begets more govt and there really isnt a mechanism for the people to not vote themselves more govt which is a natural tendency.

It is obvious where we are heading. Though I dont think we will see socialism in this country. I think we will are in the middle of a fascist revolution.

If you're right, it's thanks to the right, who are ever giving more power and wealth to the large corporations and their owners, and creating easily-manipulated hordes of followers of demagogues - the types who buy into the trivial nonsense of 'Al Gore invented the paper clip' and Swift boating and 'Obama called Palin a pig', who are the armies supporting the deagogues of right-wing talk radio and Fox, who attend 'spontaneous' gatherings at tea parties organized by Fox and other right-wing operatives.

They've had a perverse ideology for the rich beaten into them which has resulted in the nation going down the road to a massive concentration of wealth and power.

Tee up the financial crisis they created and the situation ripens for the demagogues to claim the government they broke 'doesn't work' so give them even more power.

That's a situation ripe for exploitation - and fascism.

It's the progressives who are the enemies of fascism, who want to rein in the concentration of power - where your side calls the efforts to empower the masses 'dangerous'.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
I believe one of the founding fathers spoke about this as well. That govt begets more govt and there really isnt a mechanism for the people to not vote themselves more govt which is a natural tendency.

It is obvious where we are heading. Though I dont think we will see socialism in this country. I think we will are in the middle of a fascist revolution.

If you're right, it's thanks to the right, who are ever giving more power and wealth to the large corporations and their owners, and creating easily-manipulated hordes of followers of demagogues - the types who buy into the trivial nonsense of 'Al Gore invented the paper clip' and Swift boating and 'Obama called Palin a pig', who are the armies supporting the deagogues of right-wing talk radio and Fox, who attend 'spontaneous' gatherings at tea parties organized by Fox and other right-wing operatives.

They've had a perverse ideology for the rich beaten into them which has resulted in the nation going down the road to a massive concentration of wealth and power.

Tee up the financial crisis they created and the situation ripens for the demagogues to claim the government they broke 'doesn't work' so give them even more power.

That's a situation ripe for exploitation - and fascism.

It's the progressives who are the enemies of fascism, who want to rein in the concentration of power - where your side calls the efforts to empower the masses 'dangerous'.

My vote for the most eloquent bullshit artist on P&N. /clap

 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
I believe one of the founding fathers spoke about this as well. That govt begets more govt and there really isnt a mechanism for the people to not vote themselves more govt which is a natural tendency.

It is obvious where we are heading. Though I dont think we will see socialism in this country. I think we will are in the middle of a fascist revolution.

If you're right, it's thanks to the right, who are ever giving more power and wealth to the large corporations and their owners, and creating easily-manipulated hordes of followers of demagogues - the types who buy into the trivial nonsense of 'Al Gore invented the paper clip' and Swift boating and 'Obama called Palin a pig', who are the armies supporting the deagogues of right-wing talk radio and Fox, who attend 'spontaneous' gatherings at tea parties organized by Fox and other right-wing operatives.

They've had a perverse ideology for the rich beaten into them which has resulted in the nation going down the road to a massive concentration of wealth and power.

Tee up the financial crisis they created and the situation ripens for the demagogues to claim the government they broke 'doesn't work' so give them even more power.

That's a situation ripe for exploitation - and fascism.

It's the progressives who are the enemies of fascism, who want to rein in the concentration of power - where your side calls the efforts to empower the masses 'dangerous'.

My vote for the most eloquent bullshit artist on P&N. /clap

+1