Seriously, there is a different between Marx, Marxism and a progressive income tax. Was Woodrow Wilson a Marxist? Dwight Eisenhower? Lyndon Johnson? All believed in a progressive income tax and social services. Get over yourself and your hyperbole. You may have a point, but the way you are trying to make it is by screaming WOLF when the worst you might see is a rat.

FA: don't get too upset, the folks out of power always squeal like stuck pigs - look at the national GOP and their toady ilk Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. When the Dems were wandering the wasteland of minority status, they did the same thing - hyperbolic hyperventilating ala Moore, Garafolo, Reid, etc. Murray's a special case, having never been in power, but you get the idea. And of course, the louder the message, the less people listen.

I hope no one takes this propagandistic article seriously.

After decades of the Capitalists fleecing this country and its people, it's about time that we do get a shot of genuine Marxism.

It's what the working class needs most, but don't expect it from either wings of our One Corporatist Party.

~RB

Murray would thrive in a Marxist state. He would go to Marxist state schools, Marxist state colleges, Marxist state universities, and go back to teaching at a Marxist state college. Then he would run for Governor in a Marxist state and have the Marxist state pay for his campaign expenses.

http://christiegonewild.blogspot.com/

Murray's "evidence" is all so thin, all based on his very weak understanding of history, politics, political theory and government...in fact he is showing to have even a poor understanding of economics. His hamhanded Barack Obama thinks this way so he must therefore be a Marxist is not only wrong, it lacks any trace of academic analysis. No facts, figures, or stats support his theories. What is most disturbing about Murray is that he is a pundit, that disguises himself as an academic. Truthfully is terrible at both jobs. Perhaps what is most telling is that Murray wages verbal war on financial elites...these elites Murray are the winners in your scheme. They are the capitalists, the me first and the gimme gimme gimme crowd...Murray wants these people to assume as much wealth as possible because that is what the unregulated free market does. Murray claiming corruption is moot, because with or without state regulation the financial elites amass vast wealth...Murray, my frined its time to pack it up. 15 minutes are up.

This is all old Murray...he has posted at least 9 posts about this. Any current topic in the news Murray applies to a formula. Healthcare blah blah blah marxism blah blah blah federal reserve blah blah blah fain support to the founders (demonstrating I have no idea what the heck the Founders thought and invented) blah blah blah...you could replace healthcare with the stimulus package, the war, even the white house easter egg hunt...Murray is one note and he plays that note poorly.

The best thing about this article is the Vally Girl Headline

"For more than one hundred years, America has been transformed into a hybrid society, with elements of both socialism and fascism lumped together under a collectivist umbrella."

This is exactly what we've turned into.  You can love it or hate it, but it is true.

We have not recently practiced true capitalism - at least not since Wilson.  IF we were practicing true capitalism, banks would not have been forced to lend to people who can't afford to pay back; they wouldn't have been bailed out if they did; large banks (Goldman Sachs, BoA) would not be bailed out while small ones fail; those same large banks with the aid of an active Federal Reserve and a sleeping Congress would not be leading us down a road towards Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation; federal government backed agencies (Fannie and Freddie) would not control 57% of all mortgage loans after receiving hundreds of billions in bailouts and trillions in further guarantees; those who produce and make money would not have their money confiscated to be given to those who make nothing; temporary emergencies would not be blown out of proportion to justify permanent loss of liberty.  Perhaps Obama's finest Marxist practice is his pitting of one class of people against another.

Anyone who was paying attention during the election last year would not have been surprised by anything that is happening - perhaps only the speed at which it is being advanced.  We will get the government we deserve.  If it is to be one driven by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, well we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.  But, the bridge is built and it's just up the road - have you the 'change' to pay the toll?  Just remember the bridge collapses after you cross it.

With all due respect you have a very poor understanding of both socialism and facism. Neither of which are applicable to the American form of government. Read Leviathan, then read the writings of Hamilton and Madison. The USA falls somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, the concept that socialism is purely evil is a cold-war ideology that has no real purpose in today's lexicon. Social democracies are some of the strongest nations on Earth, where people live better than many in the USA. Socialism and Fascism didnt bring about the recession, it wasnt that banks were forced to lend, it was greed. Greed always has and always will have a downside. Greed is good when the bubble is blowing up, but bad when it bursts. Only you, Murray, and Ayn Rand would think that this nation is in anyway socialist or fascist.

Some of the world's most respected economists and economists egree with Murray Sabrin. In 1974, Charlotte Twight (an economist) penned the book entitled "America's Emerging Fascist Economy". In that book, Twight painstakingly details all the elements of fascism and compares those elements with American political institutions. The conclusion is completely inescapable: American political institutions are wholly congruent in every way with the goals and policies of fascism. In 2002 Twight wrote "Dependent on DC: The Rise of Federal Control Over The Lives Of Ordinary Americans" in which she again details all of the elements of fascism that appertain to American political institutions. In particular, she describes the evil nature of political entrepreneurialism and how business and government work together to fleece ordinary Americans through regulation and legislation bestowing favors on certain economic actors at the expense of everyone else. In the forties, economist and Nobel Prize winner Fredrich Hayek penned "The Road to Serfdom" in which Hayek plainly showed that America was headed toward collectivism of both/either socialism and/or fascism. It is true that there are technical differences among the variants of socialism; however, all politically-imposed socialism inevitably morphs into fascism or corporatism (as Hayek demonstrates). Voluntary socialism can and does exist solely in small communities as socialism lacks any rational price system for the production and exchange of goods and services (Mises, 1922). This Greed/Capitalism thing is a blood-red herring. Man is inherently greedy (so long as greedy is understood only as a personal urge to self-aggrandizement, and not necessarily at the expense of others). Thus greed itself is neither bad nor good . . . it is the method that people employ to achieve their values/assets that has moral implications (how they act on their greed). True capitalists seek to gain by trade and production, not by political entrepreneurism, as do coercive socialists, fascists and corporatists. In 1985, economist Thomas Sowell wrote "Marxism: Philosophy and Economics". In this book, Sowell simply lays out the philosophical and economic bases of Marxism. Comparing the materials provided with in that book with Dr. Sabrin's ongoing and repetitive analyses shows substantial congruence. In short, Dr. Sabrin is standing on the broad shoulders of many other economists in analyzing current political and economic problems. He did not create these ideas out of whole cloth or dream them up as many here have claimed or suggested. Why many continue to make that claim here is beyond me. Sabrin is merely distilling a large body of economic, social and political thought which has deep roots in traditional western enlightenment thinking. Goes back to the late middle ages and thereafter the Physiocrats. As to the repetitive nature of Dr. Sabrin's writing: many understand that there is only one legitimate fundamental political debate, to wit: collectivism vs. individualism. That fundamental debate is largely ignored by the media and in academia to a lesser degree. Dr. Sabrin is one of the few academics who insists that political issues always be couched in terms of fundamentals. (Does any particular policy advance individualism or collectivism?) If you wish to read discussion of whether an 10 % increase in taxes is okay so long as the revenue is "wisely spent", don't read Dr. Sabrin . . . read the Star Ledger or the NY Times. Both of those rags ASSUME the legitimacy of taxes in general and most tax increases, and will not engage in the debate ever the desireability of liberty over coercion. I read "Leviathan" in high school. It was boring and simplistic then . . . I can see no reason whatsoever to revisit it now. My advice is: forget Leviathan and read Murray Rothbard's "The New Leviathan" which chronicles the advance of fascism and corporatism in Amerika. If nothing more, it's more current and relevant . . . and certainly far more interesting.

To begin with Twight, and Rothabard-like Murray are Libertarians first and "scholars" second. They begin with a conclusion and seek evidence that supports their claim, and ignore evidence that does not. That is poor academia. Like Sabrin and the rest of the VM Inst crowd they are economists by training, but neve ruse any type of scientific appraoch. Therfore, I know Murray doesnt come up with this on his own, but VM basically does. Their work is by and large untested and unprovable. Sowell is obviously better than his aforementioned bretheran, but his work neverthelss is dimissive and he is an unabashed conservative 1st, an academic 2nd. True Capitalists, dont care where they find their all mighty dollars, the point is simply to obtain them. There is not assumption of tax legitimacy-their is taxation legitamicy. It is a power granted to the Fed Gov by the Const. In fact those who wrote it, had a primary concern that the Articles did not empower the Fed Gov to act on the citizens directly or enforce taxation. While Leviathan may or may not be boring (for the record for someone with seemingly 100 degree I find it odd that you havnt read a book deemed to be a true classic in the field of political theory since high school-I would suggest a reread) its influence and merits are no less significant that the materials of traditiona west political theory that you claim Murray sabrin bases his findings on

Why odd? Some ideas are inherently puerile (like the some of the so-called "classics"). I opt not to repeat a waste of time . . . classics, my ass. A waste of time is a waste of time, no matter when or what time of your life you waste them. In high school I didn't know any better . . . but when I became a man I put away childish things . . . The so called "economists" of today do not use a "scientific" (by that I take you to mean the so-called "empirical" approach) to the study of economics, they use a "scientistic" approach. (See, "Epistemological Problems of Economics", by Ludwig von Mises, 1933) The natural sciences and the social sciences simply do not permit of the same examination. The problem with "government economists" or "econometric" economists are that they don't understand that economics is deductive science in that it is a study in the nature and consequence of human action (See "Human Action", by Ludwig von Mises, 1949). I don't a rat's ass if someone is a socialist first and an economist second or thirs od fourth or whatever . . . I care if what they write is defensible and rationally defended. Dr. Sabrin's materials are defensible and his conclusions are both historically and logically demonstrably accurate. The rest of what you write is just so much more baloney, plant food and hogwash, as usual. You will never read the books that I have cited because you know that they perpend every single collectivist notion ever written anywhere . . . and not from a so-called "libertarian" perspective, whatever that means. These books are written by legitimate academic scholars and must be refuted by methodological academic scholars in peer reviewed materials . . . not criticized from the conclusions they reach by pissant amateurs like you. If you don't like what Sabrin writes, continue to read the NY Times and the Star Ledger. They don't give a rat's ass for legitimate, defensible ideas. That's right up your alley. Stay in your own alley where the intellectual rigor is at the high school level.

For such an educated man you have a remarkably dismissive and disrespectful tone. You can continue to hold your dogmatic faith in a theory that is not only flawed but been refuted time and time again by actual academics. Leviathan is a classic because its tenants hold merit, whether you and you obviously unsophisticated and ignorant opinion believe so or not. You insulting my intellegence is laughable, I have only ever presented my ideas and opinions rationally. You on the other hand resort to name calling bcause I disagree that the VM crowd can solve every problem under the sun. Your approach to understanding academia and politics is sad, very sad. I have read your authors, I bother to read things. Because I dont agree with them, I am some how a pissant amateur...right. Try looking beyong the VM crowd its amazing what you'll find when you bother to step out of your shell.

You are a pissant amateur who clearly hasn't read any of the authors I have cited; specifically, Von Mises on methodological individualism as set forth in "Human Action" and "Epistemological Problems". Both of these works demonstrate both logically and empricially how data cannot be used to refute theory . . . which is exactly what Mises critics have always tried to do. Apples and cows (not even bananas). You have said nothing logical or even rational that I can remember reading, ever. Demonstrate to me that you've read any of the materials I cited. Demonstrate that you have understood them. Provide a reasoned critique. If you can't (and you can't) you ought to just shut the hell up about it. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate any scintilla of a working knowledge of economics (not economic history as the bean counters can be characterized), I'll stop calling you what you appear to be . . . at best a dilletante with a high school level background in the subjects you purport to have mastered. I dare you. I double dare you.

Am I supposed to engage someone on a rational level that refers to be as a pissant and follows that with dare and doubledare...get over yourself. Im noy going to go over every post I have ever written My work speaks for itself.

Great@@
links of london