Even if you accepted the conclusion of Marx and the endgame of capitalism (I do not) the reference to an unfettered, unregulated capitalism presupposes we ever had such a thing, but I would say only the government needs fetters. They need only maintain sound currency and get out of the way.
Beyond that the trajectory and road signs of statism along the way are plain.
The question is; can this nation which did the extraordinary once creating a unique foundation, again do the extraordinary and reverse the course without calamity?

Interesting article. I stopped reading, though, when I got to the part where the author quoted a fellow I WON'T NAME, who thinks the traitor Bradley Manning is some kind of hero.

Fascinating article, but in the end our seeming need to define bad and worse forms of totalitarianism via graphic representations - left/right, monarchy/oligarchy, fascist/communist, whatever, blinds us to the only really important conclusion - that they are all statist, implementing the same anti-individual, anti-humanist, irrational policies under different pseudonyms, all with the same goal - total control. And that is the apparent condition we are rushing towards as a nation and as a species. I suspect that Rand understood the inevitability of this. That is why Atlas Shrugged depicts the necessity of a complete societal meltdown before the possibility of a resurgence is even imaginable.

Ah, it usually helps to scroll down the whole article. (self-reminder) I saw the Nolan diagram where the political differences were in the correct order from Left to Right. I don't agree totally on where Ron Paul was and others, but overall, the Huxley and Orwell comparison was accurate and disturbing.

It seemed pretty good until I came across the diagram showing Anarchy and Communism: they got it wrong! Far Left is Totalitarianism ~ the end state of communism. Far Right is Anarchy ~ no government at all. I agree about the Karl Marx usage.