Re: Actually...

I don't understand why so many people see unbridled and unregulated capitalism as the benchmark of "freedom." This simply allows the rich minority to become something equivalent to a fascist state, and to rule directly over the people via economic dominance, without using politicians as a go-between. This is the very essence of fascism. Though I am against capitalism, if I am stuck living in such a system then I prefer to live in a system where the economic landscape is well regulated by the state rather than allowing the rich to run rampant and to take whatever they want and become more and more powerful and to take more and more of the collective wealth without limits. As someone who isn't rich and who never will be rich, this is NOT in my best interests to support. I just don't understand why so many non-wealthy people support this paleo-conservatism.

You (like a good Marxist, I must admit) are assuming that the state is not autonomous.

The state is likely not autonomous in the contemporary pseudo-kapitalisms, yes, but it needn't be so.

Fascism by definition requires the state to be autonomous. And history teaches us that too: Mussolini and Hitler spent a lot of time and energy into making sure the state was autonomous...

True kapitalism would also destroy itself if the state wasn't autonomous, essentially reverting back to what we have today.

So, basically, don't confuse non-socialist systems together; and don't confuse the ones without an autonomous state with the ones with.