The "New Economics" (Keynesian Revolution) Has Several Points in Common with Marxian and Russian Socialism

From the foregoing, one may see that Keynesism [sic] has several points in common with Marxian Socialism. Among these are:

1. the theory that the rate of return on investments tends to decline and unemployment tends to increase in a free-enterprise, capitalistic economy;
2. emphasis on the depressing influence of savings in a "mature" capitalistic economy;
3. theories of an irresistible tendency to monopoly, increasing concentration of wealth, and the doom of free markets in free enterprise, or laissez faire;
4. disparagement of individual enterprise and responsibility in favor of government control over savings and provision for old age, unemployment, and other emergencies in an elaborate "social security" program;
5. proposals for "progressive" income and inheritance taxes;
6. proposals for government management of the currency and banking, for government ownership of certain industries; and for liquidation ("euthanasia") of the rentier (bond-holding and fixed-income) classes; 
7. a collectivistic view of property rights as privileges from the State, to be given or taken away at the will of the State;
8. a tendency to identify government with "all of us," or with "society," in the democratic socialist state and in the democratic Keynesian "mixed" economy;
9. a tendency to deal with persons and economic activity in terms of "classes," "averages," "aggregates," and technological or economic "forces";
10. a mechanistic view of human behavior as predictable and controllable by government, through study and manipulation of interest rates, money, government lending and spending, taxation, and technological developments. 

Yet, despite the similarities between Marxian socialism and Keynesism [sic] and despite growing hostility to Russian Marxists, the Keynesian national-income approach makes rapid headway in American colleges and universities. Why?

--Vervon Orval Watts, Away from Freedom: The Revolt of the College Economists (1952; repr., Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008), 28-30.