[G. Adams]

Capitalists, or bourgousie are a class of people who bring wealth to themself through manipulation of currently owned capital. Proleteriat are those who have no capital and can only sell their labour to capitalists. Every time they do this, they lose out, because their labour creates X amount of wealth, yet they will get only a fifth of it perhaps. There is a petty bourgousie who aspire to become fully fledged bourgois, and they have to combine labour with capital (often borrowed). The petty bourgois are currently in a safe time, where it is possible to achieve the goal of moving into the bourgois. But as capitalism is based upon expanding wealth, when the big corporations reach their maximum growth through other courses, they have to crush, or buy up sometimes, the competition.

You know if your as intelligent as you try to make us believe I would have though you would know such elementary basics of politics. And not left wing politics, all comparative politics works with this division, as well as others.

Its not conspiracy. I don't see it as an all encompasing plot. But look at it like this. I'll use Britian as my example, being familiar with it. In the mid 19th century britain expanded its sufferage greatly, allowing many of the working class (not women though yet) to vote. This brought about mass movements and mass parties. Marx's works had terrified those with wealth, the unwashed masses were going to take all their hard stolen wealth! These mass parties, although not yet in government, had wide support. All across Europe there were revolutions happening, notably the 1848 ones and the Paris Commune. GB governments did not want to see the same happening here. So what they did was take some of the mass parties demands and put them into action. So the dole was created. And bit by bit they added more of these demands into their own politics. So the support for radical parties, such as the Communist Party of Great Britain, dropped because the basic standard of living had improved, so people were less desperate for a change.

This building of the welfare state continued right up to 1979. And then the governments have felt comfortable enough to start to take it all apart.

I suggested it was Machievellian because, and again you should know this if your a student of politics, Machievelli's most important rule was (paraphrasing) 'to put your populace in such a situation that they cannot imagine life without, that they need you more than you need them'

And this is what the welfare state has done. 100 years ago, if there was no welfare state, they would have revolted and created one. If there was no welfare state at all nowadays, people wouldn't know what to do. They would be in complete misery. The state has created such a situation that we are totally dependant on the government.