Is the United States Undergoing a Marxist Revolution?

Recently, I had a reader ask me if the U.S. was surreptitiously becoming a "Marxist" country. The reader pointed to presence of  Left wing groups like Antifa. LGBTQ, and Black Lives Matter (which have gone quiet lately) and the hesitance of government officials (especially Democrats) to act, not to mention the politicization for the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. They also wondered if the comically misnamed "January 6th Insurrection" was part of it, perhaps a "false flag" designed to rally the Left and shine the spotlight on Right winger agitators and leaders.

While there's no doubt the protest of January 6th was out of years of pent-up frustration, triggered by what many saw as a "stolen election", it was by no means a "false flag". It was genuine anger, and as the last four years has borne out, a justifiable anger.  The Biden Administration hasn't done America any favors domestically or overseas. So, is America on the road to Marxism? Here's my response. I hope you find it informative.

Is the U.S. becoming Marxist? Hardly. In fact, we’re aren't in the midst of a revolution of any sort (at least, not yet).  However, the United States is and has been undergoing a corporate coup in slow motion for some time now. Wall Street has been growing its power and influence over politics in the U.S. ever since the “Citizens United” blunder in 2010 by the Supreme Court, which effectively removed the ordinary citizen voter from any meaningful impact on elections.

Citizens United declared that corporations, which are nothing more than legal fictions, have the same rights as you and I while employees are denied many of the basic rights they have outside of the business. It means that not only does the artificial entity itself have a voice in a election, but so to does the individuals who control the company. In addition, the Supreme Court blunder said that money is equivalent to free speech.

It also said corporations can donate what they please while we’re still capped in what we can donate, not that it matters. Corporations can give millions which far exceeds anything the average citizen voter can ever hope to give. These corporations even donate more than unions by a 10 to 1 margin.

Thus, corporations can buy the candidate of their choice. They also underwrite the two principal parties, the Democrats and Republicans (what in truth we have is simply two competing corporate cliques with many corporations giving to both parties). They also fund so-called “leadership PACs” which are basically slush funds for politicians to use as they please.

There are literally hundreds of lobbyists per legislator (who often call on the senior staff as well). How many lobbyists represent “Joe and Jane Public? you ask? Virtually none, and what does exist can’t come close to matching what Wall Street gives.

In addition, because politicians don’t have the time or staff to read every bill coming across their desk, corporate lobbying firms do have the time and staff to reading incoming bills, as well as provide summaries and recommendations on how to vote. On many occasions, this is done strictly for the party leadership, who then pass their marching orders down the line. As an aside, legislators typically spend the majority of their day fund raising for the party and party leadership as well as themselves.

Corporate lobbyists help legislators to research and/or write bills (and have been known to write the bills in their entirety) and then help shepherd them through the maze of committees (albeit often quietly picking up some "riders' (better known as “pork”) along the way.

Now, if that’s not enough, corporate lobbyists provide all sorts of perks, ranging from the use of private planes, boats, beach houses, “investment advice”, and vacations (typically under the heading of a “seminar” or something educational). In addition, the majority of legislators leaving office find themselves working for one or more of these lobbyist firms and/or Wall Street corporations making ten times what they did in Washington (many under the moniker of <wink wink> “consultant”).

Just five corporations now control 96+% of all media—-print, electronic, internet, television and radio. They determine what you hear and see (until recently it was six). They decide what you should know and how it’s to be presented. They also entertain you with regular programming (some with a political slant and some not), sports, video games, talk shows, magazines, and so forth. Some of it is obvious but most of it isn’t. It’s barely noticeable and subtle. Bread and circuses made new.

So, does any of that sound like “Marxism” to you? Most political scientists agree that the United States is nowadays a neo-fascist Oligarchy. The debate has become over which term best describes the nature of our servitude --- a “plutocracy”, "oligarchy", or “kleptocracy”, but does it matter? The end result is the same. We've ceased being citizens. National pride is passé, even frowned upon. Nowadays, we are global consumers loyal to some soap or deodorant. 

America is no longer a Republic, although the illusion will continue to be perpetuated for a bit longer just as it was under the early Roman Caesars shortly after the fall of the Roman Republic. The Caesars offered security and economic stability in exchange for power, wealth, and the freedom of the Roman people. 

The United States has become a corporatocracy through a process known as "gradualism"; shot incremental steps which, while appearing to go backwards here and there, steadily advances elsewhere. Sometimes it makes giant bold moves while at other times its movements through the halls of government are so subtle as to be barely noticeable.   

We've devolved into a surveillance state where privacy has become a quaint notion of a bygone age, where democracy is parceled out, and our freedoms are managed for our own good. Any government which has taken upon itself the power to a lot you any measure of freedom can just as easily take that freedom away without civil recourse. Government should serve the people, not serve them up on a platter. 

There are literally dozens of books, articles and videos about our metamorphosis from a democratic Constitutional Republic into “USA Inc”. I’ve provided just a sprinkling of links below to whet your curiosity. I do hope you will check them out.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever site you found us on, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

The Media Oligopoly: How a Handful of Companies Control Nearly All of the Media in the U.S.

The Myth of U.S. Democracy and the Reality of U.S. Corporatocracy

The Corporate Takeover of American Politics

How the US Became an Oligarchy

The American Oligarchs Have Arrived to Destroy US Democracy | Common Dreams

 

Can We Still Save America?

Today we're faced with a whole litany of troubles. It seems that we just jump from crisis to crisis every day. Sometimes it feels like its hour to hour! Many of us have all but stopped listening to the media's "Crisis du Jure", which attempts to tell us who to hate today and what causes or issues we should be for or against. We just can't take another minute of this negativity anymore. So, what do we do?

They whip our passions using fake patriotism, images of charred houses, and the ubiquitous impoverished children and heartbroken women. We turn to distractions like our "smartphones", video games, brain dead television programs which conditions us when to clap or laugh thanks to their programmed laugh tracks.

We even focus on sports to the point of obsession. Our discussions often become so intense you'd think we had a financial stake in the outcome. Why? Because we know that ultimately the outcome of some game doesn't really affect us. Our attention has carefully been turned away from the issues which truly matter such as rising prices, the declining value of our hard earned dollars or the loss of any benefits  we may happened to have had.

We work longer and harder and earn  less. Did you know that today's average worker's income, after adjusted for inflation,  has the same buying power as it did in 1979? Prices haven't remained the same, and hence finding households where both adults work, and some are holding down two or three jobs!

In fact, we now bring home less than our parents or even grandparents did in the 1970's! When adjusted for inflation, worker wages have only increased 15%. At the same time, the income of CEOs and their ilk have increased 1,209 % since 1979.At the same time taxes and prices continue to rise and yet multi-billion dollars conglomerates pay little or nothing. Do you think that's right?

Divisions among class, race, religion, and ethnic group are worse now than they have in decades. As long as we're divided and fighting among ourselves, it's so much easier to control us while they are free to pull the strings. After all, as long as we're fighting each other, the ruling elite can do as they please. Face it,  those with the real power are playing our manufactured fears like a fiddle from Hell. 

The mainstream media publishes or slants the stories the ruling class wants us to hear. Propaganda is all about perception. Wars, for instance, are usually framed in such colorful phrases  such as "freedom", "democracy", "free enterprise", "obligation " and "duty". They try to  connect our revolutionary war to whatever cause their pushing in order to create a link. It's almost always accompanied by imagery intended to play on our emotions and patriotism. But just how sincere is their message?

More often than not, the answer is it isn't.  Everything always comes down to economics. It's often about forcing a sovereign nation to open its markets to U.S. and Western corporations under the not so subtle veil of a U.S. military invasion.  If it weren't, then why do we prop up undemocratic autocracies like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia just as we did for South Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Nicaragua or Panama. Iraq and Nicaragua were praised as allies until they stopped following directions.

Take for instance Iraq. Saddam Hussein (who we helped into power) invaded Kuwait, a key provider of oil and gas. That triggered a rise in prices. So, after a propaganda campaign to manufacture consent by the American People, we were fed a bunch of BS about  promised democratic reforms by the Kuwaiti monarchy such as allowing women to vote and sharing power. You know what happened after we "liberated" Kuwait? Nothing.

Most of these were the result of coups following democratic elections in which we didn't like the outcome.  In their place, we installed ultra conservative military juntas who opposed anything democratic! However, invasion isn't always or even mostly the end result.

In the majority of cases good old bribery and kickbacks do the trick in the form of economic aid. Of course, this works both ways such political donations to various foundations, insider tips on stocks or seats on boards of directors, or being hired as a "consultant".  It's called "pay to play" and the typical American doesn't have the cash to feed the pot.

We talk about being the land of opportunity, yet so many family farms and "mom and pop" businesses are forced to close because of big box stores. Did you know that only 4 companies control 65% of the food market or that other four control 95% of the world's fertilizer and seeds? That represents 65% of the global food supply. Nationally only 5 banks dominate the U.S. financial market---Chase Bank, Bank of America, U.S. Bankcorp, Wells Fargo, and Citibank. 

Just six corporations dominate the pharmaceutical industry and can virtually dictate the price of medication (as an aside, several medical industry research studies have been published which show that 70% of the price increases of prescription medication are not supported by medical research or demand). Shareholders of "Big Pharma" stock saw a 400% increase in payouts from 2000 to 2018.  Government regulations attempt to regulate our ability to cultivate our own gardens or collect rainwater. It's all about dependence.

While the largest producers of oil and gas are Russia and OPEC, the U.S. is a strong contender, yet, when we talk about those companies with control over the spigot, 10 companies overwhelming dominate the market. Together they represent roughly 90% of oil and gas market.

Any new green technology is quickly bought up or "boo hooed" as unpractical  and back up using paid for research papers. That doesn't mean there aren't windmill farms and the like, but there are too few to make much of a difference. They use their influence to divert federal aid from projects that would improve mileage or lower energy costs.  

We now have five corporations controlling 96+% of our media from print and digital to radio and TV. They are behind the shows we watch nightly, the movies we see, the games we play, and even our access to the internet. Just five technology companies dominate 33% of the global technology market, and so the story goes.

Many of these conglomerates have more money than some countries. When comparing economies of size, Apple's revenue is larger than the individual economies of Italy, Canada, Brazil, Russia, Australia, Spain, and others. Microsoft is financially bigger than nine countries including Russia, South Korea, and Mexico. The same goes for Amazon, Facebook, and Saudi Aramco. Only seven nations still has economies larger than these corporations --- U.S., China,  India, and the UK, but that doesn't mean their governments are in control.  

Is it any wonder then that America has undergone a silent coup in slow motion and become a corporatocracy? It was done in such a way that most Americans never even noticed.  And the best part about this silent slow motion coup is that there are those who still denied it ever happened. That's when you know your coup was successful.

The "Republic" is held up as mask to pacify the naive. Our new "America, Inc" is managed by a handful of these meg-rich individuals --- aka "Oligarchs" (or plutocrats if you prefer).  They serve the interest of Wall Street, not Main Street America. Both political parties are quite literally bought and paid for. Consider the "Citizens United" blunder for instance.

Corporations are nothing more than legal fictions. But under Citizens United, they don't have just the same rights as you and I do (an absurdity in itself), but more. How so? Because money is now defined as "free speech" and  you can bet that they have far than we do. Secondly, these "fictional persons" can donate basically whatever they feel like to a issue, party or individual.

Ordinary citizens are capped at an insignificant  $1000 in donations per election cycle. Compare that to Bloomberg Lp which donated just under $93 million to Joe Biden in 2020. The Las Vegas Sands gambled $45 million on Trump . Congressional Leadership PACS (basically "slush funds") received a total of $40.5 million dollars from Big Business, with most of that going to the Republican Party. But what about unions?

The power of organized labor has been broken since the 1960's. Once, they were protected workers and were actively involved in social issues. Nowadays, they are more interested in keeping workers on production lines rather than picket lines. When it comes to donations, corporations give nearly ten dollars for every dollar unions give.

Look at illegal immigration. This has been a national security crisis since the 1980's. That's over 40 years ago. If government really wanted to resolve the issue you'd think four decades would be ample  time. The truth is that they never had any real intentions to resolve the problem. The influx dilutes the workforce, thus driving down wages and benefits (and in some cases, eliminating them altogether). 

It makes employees more concerned about keeping a job than improving their working conditions.  What the ruling class wants is a workforce just smart enough to keep their heads down, do their job, and don't ask questions, which happens to be exactly what public education has participated in creating--- a dumbed down workforce of economic serfs. An unengaged citizenry allows those in power the freedom to do as they please without interference.

Writing legislation has become increasing a corporate lobbyist function rather than that of Congress while using their large staffs to reviewing proposed bills and make recommendations to the House or Senate member on how to vote on any given issue. That frees up the elected representative to spend more time raising money for party leadership.

These corporate lobbyist are also known to provide first rate perks, grease palms, and most importantly, underwrite their elections and provide opponent research.  No wonder members of Congress  have a 98% reelection rate despite having an approval rating of 13% (in November 2013 it was 9%). Think about those numbers for a moment. These are Soviet Era rates! This is what you'd expect in the old Soviet Politburo, China's National People's Congress, or North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly.  They are the percentages of failed democracy.

It's obvious therefore why there's no shortage of willing takers! Why else would already wealthy individuals spend millions for a job that pays just $174,000 or less than what an medium size company president makes? A sense of civic duty? Noblesse oblige?  As the expression goes, the winners write the history...and the game rules. So, in case you're keeping score,  the American People aren't winning. Is there anything we can do to save any part of our remaining Republic?

Well, the answer is a qualified "yes", but there's very little time remaining in the hourglass of our once great nation. Key is that we have to stop bitching and actually do something. We need to stop voting for the "lesser of two evils". Evil is evil. We need to break up the political duopoly. We need to think and vote outside the box. 

While we may be too late to save the federal government, we should focus our efforts on local and state elections. We need to support third parties and Independent candidates in any way we can. We need to force state legislatures to permit citizen initiatives (if you already have one, count yourself lucky). We need to press for term limits, changes in our campaign financial requirements, adding third party and Independent representative to local boards of election.

We need to eliminate partisan offices on non-policy making offices such as county clerk or attorney, the offices of Secretary of State, Agriculture, or Treasure. Newly elected officials should be required to resign from whatever party they belong to and take an oath to represent everyone in the district, not just fellow partisans.

We must build stronger local communities and demand more from our boards of education, police department, as well as reforming our taxing authorizes. No rate or taxes increases without voter approval. While these are just a handful of changes we can make, to set back and do nothing is not an option any more. You don't have to do all of them. Pick one. Get involved. Be the change we must have. It's time to come home to our roots.

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Open Secrets: Top Contributors to JoeBiden, 2020 Cycle

Open Secrets: Top Contributors to DonaldTrump, 2020 Cycle

The World's Tech Giants, Compared to the Size of Economies

The Top 10 Oil Companies in the World

Who Controls The World's Food Supply?

For most U.S. worker, real wages havebarely budged in decades

CEO pay slightly declined in 2022

Who owns the world's largest pharmaceutical companies? 

Who are the Players in the Pharmaceutical Industry (Big Pharma)?

Playing Political "Musical Chairs": Do We Understand What's Happening?

It seems that whenever some political issue makes the headlines, however briefly, there suddenly seems to be a proliferation of sites popping up with some outrageous claim about capitalist exploitation of the masses, or trying to equate socialism with communism. Invariably, there are the usual "harrumphs" from naive sheeple.

Whenever some brave soul steps up to offer a point or two of clarification, these political zombies go into attack mode; which usually involves calling the hapless do-gooder all sorts of names (like the wannabe "intellectuals" they are) and making repeated attempts to ridicule the argument with warmed over tripe acquired from the pages of some populist partisan rag. 

When asked to explain their fanatic defenses, they tend to spew the same ole garbage, albeit slightly rephrased. In other words, these "walking dead" zealots seem to be simply latching on to anything which reaffirms their currently held beliefs, however wrong they may be.

So, with having gotten that off my chest, I am going to brave a walk through the minefield of political ignorance which seems to be so common these days (thank you public school systems for your spectacular achievement in dumbing down the quality of the American education). Of course, I speak of the general population which tends to get their news and from their opinions based on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media posts. 

Obviously I'm not talking about the readers of Another Opinion, who tend to be an authority questioning bunch when it comes to seeking out the facts, where ever that search may lead and who are unafraid to challenge authority (something I very much admire). With that, I am going to try and briefly explain the differences in political philosophy as concisely as possible. For some of you this may be remedial. For that I apologize. However, some---perhaps most---who just "assumed" the authors of those politically partisan sites were being honest, I hope this comes as a fresh breeze.

First, what is democracy? Quite simply, it's when the public come together and freely discuss topics of mutual concern, and once there is an agreement, decide what to do next such as appoint a committee, allocate money from the public treasury (which obviously also had to be previously discussed and agreed to). The notion of a democracy started with the Ancient Greeks (Athenians actually). 

In its original form, it excluded certain groups such as women, slaves, criminals, non-citizens, or individuals under a certain age (in fact, the more authoritarian and militaristic Sparta afforded women in general more personal and political rights). Over time, a democracy became too complex and thus entered the republic, made famous by Rome.

The republic (from the Latin "res publica" meaning public matter) took the notion of a democracy and simplified it. Citizens would elect representatives to undertake the governance of society. In what some may have considered a mistake, they also gave them wide desecration over the treasury. The treasury would be maintained by mandatory taxes (again, the wisdom of this is still considered a bit "iffy"). Nevertheless, it allowed the People more time to tend to their personal business while their elected representatives ran the government. 

Overtime, this too became more complicated and it didn't take long for the servants to become the masters; usually humbled only during elections. A republic is possibly not the best form of government since often times the Will of the People is ignored in favor of a few wealthy and influential types, and costs are imposed on the citizenry without their consent (though nearly always with some concocted justification). However, when it does run smoothly, it's the best of the worst to represent the general interests of the People.

As for kingships and dictatorships, I'll just briefly touch on these since they don't really have much effect on us these days. Basically, the concept of kingships arose early after diverse populations of people came to live, work, and trade as a single group. To avoid attack or possible exploitation by other groups, an individual was chosen as the "protector" or king. His (or sometimes "her") role was to represent the people, including and especially, when it came to their defense and needs. 

Overtime, this role greatly expanded and in most cases, a religious element was introduced to make it appear that the king (or queen) was divinely chosen, and thus "rule by divine right" was born (during the same time, the priesthood also came about. It claimed that they alone understood the wishes of the gods. It wasn't long before the king and priesthood began to work in tandem to protect each other's interests). The upside was that kingships provided stability---politically and economically. The downside was little or no freedom. Nearly everything is scripted or controlled.

In a few cases, kingships became all powerful (ie: the Czar of Russia) while others were subject to the ruling nobles (thank you Magna Carta). Dictatorships aren't much different in principal. They usually come to power as a result of a real or manufactured crisis. Their rule tends to be more authoritarian and often without input from a legislative body (any input usually comes a small select group of "advisors" and/or "consultants" who owe their position---and life---to the thug-in-charge). 

 In some cases, such as with less developed territories, tribal kings act as a dictator with absolute or near absolute control. As an aside, for most of our civilized existence, a kingship was the dominant form of government until the Enlightenment and Reformation periods which began to challenge absolute rule and the "divine right" of kings. So while it doesn't affect us much these days, it wasn't that long ago when it did (and both forms of governments still exist in some parts of the world).

Now, fast forward to the early 19th Century (when kingships were very much still in existence), and to a couple of Germans living in Westphalia. One was the descendant of a converted Jewish family (now Lutheran). The other was an agnostic Lutheran of middle class origin, whose family owned a successful cotton mill. 

Their names were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Together they challenged the entire social, political, and economic system of not just their time, but even down to ours with just two books, "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto".

Their philosophy would be called "Marxism". Their economic-political system was to be called "Communism". The name itself is derived from the concept of "community", came about as a result of Victor d'Hupay, a French Enlightenment philosopher of the 1790's, who drew on the notion of religious or "primitive" communism based on hunter-gatherer societies, the Essenes, and the early Christian movement. Additional ideas were drawn from several of the Utopian society which were popular in England and elsewhere (especially the Paris Commune of 1871).

The notion of "Communism" was the sharing of resources equally. The idea was that the State would control all means of production and distribution to contributing individuals on a "as needed" basis ("each according to their needs" as Marx wrote). In time, the State would simply dissolve from a lack of use or need. Once this occurred, people would exist in a "socialist" society (if this sounds a bit like the original Greek concept of "democracy", it's by no accident). The first so-called "communist state" was Russia. This came about in 1917, during the latter half of World War I. At the time, Russia was ruled by the last European absolute monarchy, Czar Nicholas II.

World War I, as many of you know, was started by a Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, who assassinated the Hapsburg Crown Prince, Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo. As a result, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, of which Serbia was a member, demand retribution. Serbia was unable (and unwilling) to comply. Thus, Austro-Hungary declared war on the tiny state. Serbia dusted off an old trade agreement it had with the Russian Empire, and requested Russia's assistance. As a result, the Habsburgs requested the assistance of the German/Prussian Empire based on its mutual assistance treaty. 

Although the Kaiser, Wilhelm II, didn't want a war and made several attempts to mediate a peace, posturing by Great Britain and France, which had a mutual assistance agreement with Russia, made war inevitable (plus there George V of England and Kaiser Wilhelm II had a macho thing going on between them, and Germany had militarily humiliated France in 1871. So, France was looking to get even. Additionally, this could also be called a family feud since Czar Nicholas, King George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm were all cousins; descended from Queen Victoria).

Many, especially among the ruling elites, felt that any war would be relatively brief--six weeks---and might actually be beneficial like "letting off steam of a boiling pot". What happened was more like Europe falling into Hell. Russia was far from prepared economically, militarily, or politically and was thoroughly devastated. In February 1917, the Czar was peacefully overthrown and a democratic republic was installed under Alexander Kerensky. His insistence in remaining in the war led to his undoing, and in October, he was overthrown by the Lenin's Bolsheviks, who installed what he called a "communist" government.

For Lenin, trying to achieve power proved to be easier than obtaining it. Lenin had intended to make government all but obsolete---"the size of a local post office". However, the economy collapsed and the country fractured. There followed a bloody two year civil war. Millions died. Lenin's measures were too draconian. 

In the end, he modified the political-economic situation with NEP--the New Economic Program--which allowed for moderate capitalism. Things improved. But then Lenin died. After a brief power struggle, Joseph Stalin obtained power, and the political-social-economic form of government we think of as "Communism" was born.

Stalin reversed Lenin's NEP, implemented collectivization of farms, revoked land reforms, imposed a harsh authoritarian police state, enforced by mass executions, starvation, and a horrific system of prisons known as the "Gulag". Under Stalin, the state owned and controlled everything. Everyone worked for the state. Industry was owned by the state. Unions and worker committees (soviets), which Lenin believed were essential, were outlawed unless sanctioned by the state---namely Stalin. This then is what we think of when someone mentions "Communism"; not the Marx version, or Lenin's ideal, but Stalin's Hell on earth.

Socialism, or more properly, democratic socialism, is a admixture of socialism and a democratic republic. In theory, it means that the people own the means of production and distribution. How a factory or business is operated would be determined by its employees. Think of it in terms of ESOPs---employee stock ownership plan, or employee owned businesses, credit unions, worker run unions, etc.

 The government's function is solely to make life easier for its citizens. To do this, there is often high taxation. However, with it, nearly everything is either free to all or subsidized for all, so all benefit.

Democratic Socialism has been highly popular in Scandinavia for decades. Germany and the Lowlands have a version of it. Many in this country have called it a failure, which couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, it's been extremely successful. What may be deemed a "failure" has been the mass influx of migrants who don't share the same work ethic or values of their host. Rather than work and contribute in order that everyone benefits, they simply draw from the system, which has caused a great economic and political strain.

Lastly, let's talk about Oligarchy. While not a distinct economic form, its effect has a strong bearing on the economy. Oligarchies have existed periodically throughout history, but almost always under a democracy or a republic. An Oligarchy is where a small group or clique assume near absolute control over the political system of a nation and through it, control the economy to its advantage.

Sometimes this is referred to as a plutocracy which means "rule by the rich". It is through an Oligarchy that Fascism occurs. Fascism is a "partnership" between rich powerful corporations (or individuals) and the government (its founder, Benito Mussolini, said that Fascism could more accurately be called "corporatism").

Under Fascism, it doesn't matter which is the dominant "partner". Fascism occurs when there is a loss of economic balance between the poor, the Middle Class, and the Upper Class; specifically in the ownership of wealth and the control of governmental power. With fascism, you tend to see a decline in the Middle Class, growth of the poor, more government control, an increase in surveillance/police state tendencies, manipulative control of the media/increase in propaganda and efforts to restrict alternative news sources, more wars/conflicts over assets and resources, attempts to divide the population for better control, increase in taxes, two-tier legal system, decline in unions and employee influence, more corporate influence over government or usurping government power. Any of that sound familiar?

Hopefully, this will help explain the differences between various types of government systems. I also hope too that it will keep you from being confused or misled by those who are operating from their own agendas. I seek simply to clarify. Of course, if you follow Another Opinion or my frequent posts on the various social media sites, you already know that America is a de facto Oligarchy. We are on the fast track toward fascism, whether you call it "Left Fascism" or "Right Fascism", the end result is the same.

However, one thing is for certain---it's not socialism. In truth, we have one political party---the Corporate/Fascist Party, which has two wings; pick either one you want. Red Kool-Aid or blue Kool-Aid, the results are the same unless you put the cup down and back away. Think for yourself. Always question.