Adam Smith was a Marxist

[IDNeon]

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

Did I know that ignorant people post memes from hate sites without any knowledge as to the meaning of the slogans they paste?

Why yes, yes I did.

Let's take a look at what Smith wrote in Chapter 11;

{In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.}

Now you'll notice that Smith speaks of a "share of the produce," "stock seed" and "production." When the landlord pounds on your door to give you a 3 day notice for failure to pay rent, do these issues come up?

Why do you think they do not?

Because Smith is speaking of actual feudal lords, and the serfs who work his land. He is not speaking of those who invested their life savings in a house to rent. This is share-cropping he is speaking of. Not capitalism, not the negotiated rent for a fixed parcel of land, but instead a PERCENTAGE OF THE YIELD demanded by the Nobility from the peasants. More akin to the taxes that Obama seeks than to the rents paid for an apartment.

Leftism is predicated in equal parts upon ignorance and dishonesty.

Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

You left out the quailifier than changes the whole meaning of Smith's statement:

When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this.

Of course, Smith didn't believe real wealth would become stationary in a market economy.

Another colossal FAIL for you.

Actually what he says is "When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary".

The rest of your "Smith didn't believe..." is not in his book nor part of the conversation.

 

[Contumacious]

Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?

The Adam Smith Myth
By Murray N. Rothbard

Adam Smith (1723–90) is a mystery in a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. The mystery is the enormous and unprecedented gap between Smith’s exalted reputation and the reality of his dubious contribution to economic thought.

Marxists, with somewhat more justice, hail Smith as the ultimate inspiration of their own Founding Father, Karl Marx. Indeed, if the average person were asked to name two economists in history whom he has heard of, Smith and Marx would probably be the runaway winners of the poll.


Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon. Far worse was Smith’s complete failure to cite or acknowledge his beloved mentor Francis Hutcheson, from whom he derived most of his ideas as well as the organization of his economic and moral philosophy lectures. Smith indeed wrote in a private letter to the University of Glasgow of the ‘never-to-be-forgotten Dr. Hutcheson,’ but apparently amnesia conveniently struck Adam Smith when it came time to writing the Wealth of Nations for the general public.[ii]

 

[bripat9643]

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

Did I know that ignorant people post memes from hate sites without any knowledge as to the meaning of the slogans they paste?

Why yes, yes I did.

Let's take a look at what Smith wrote in Chapter 11;

{In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.}

Now you'll notice that Smith speaks of a "share of the produce," "stock seed" and "production." When the landlord pounds on your door to give you a 3 day notice for failure to pay rent, do these issues come up?

Why do you think they do not?

Because Smith is speaking of actual feudal lords, and the serfs who work his land. He is not speaking of those who invested their life savings in a house to rent. This is share-cropping he is speaking of. Not capitalism, not the negotiated rent for a fixed parcel of land, but instead a PERCENTAGE OF THE YIELD demanded by the Nobility from the peasants. More akin to the taxes that Obama seeks than to the rents paid for an apartment.

Leftism is predicated in equal parts upon ignorance and dishonesty.

Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

You left out the quailifier than changes the whole meaning of Smith's statement:

When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this.

Of course, Smith didn't believe real wealth would become stationary in a market economy.

Another colossal FAIL for you.

Actually what he says is "When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary".

The rest of your "Smith didn't believe..." is not in his book nor part of the conversation.

You're obviously a moron who can't comprehend simple English.

 

[IDNeon]

Did you know Adam Smith called people who live off Rent "parasites" and said that they should not exist and no one should be allowed to charge a rent?

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

Did I know that ignorant people post memes from hate sites without any knowledge as to the meaning of the slogans they paste?

Why yes, yes I did.

Let's take a look at what Smith wrote in Chapter 11;

{In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.}

Now you'll notice that Smith speaks of a "share of the produce," "stock seed" and "production." When the landlord pounds on your door to give you a 3 day notice for failure to pay rent, do these issues come up?

Why do you think they do not?

Because Smith is speaking of actual feudal lords, and the serfs who work his land. He is not speaking of those who invested their life savings in a house to rent. This is share-cropping he is speaking of. Not capitalism, not the negotiated rent for a fixed parcel of land, but instead a PERCENTAGE OF THE YIELD demanded by the Nobility from the peasants. More akin to the taxes that Obama seeks than to the rents paid for an apartment.

Leftism is predicated in equal parts upon ignorance and dishonesty.

Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

You left out the quailifier than changes the whole meaning of Smith's statement:

When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this.

Of course, Smith didn't believe real wealth would become stationary in a market economy.

Another colossal FAIL for you.

Actually what he says is "When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary".

The rest of your "Smith didn't believe..." is not in his book nor part of the conversation.

You're obviously a moron who can't comprehend simple English.

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

 

[bripat9643]

Did I know that ignorant people post memes from hate sites without any knowledge as to the meaning of the slogans they paste?

Why yes, yes I did.

Let's take a look at what Smith wrote in Chapter 11;

{In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.}

Now you'll notice that Smith speaks of a "share of the produce," "stock seed" and "production." When the landlord pounds on your door to give you a 3 day notice for failure to pay rent, do these issues come up?

Why do you think they do not?

Because Smith is speaking of actual feudal lords, and the serfs who work his land. He is not speaking of those who invested their life savings in a house to rent. This is share-cropping he is speaking of. Not capitalism, not the negotiated rent for a fixed parcel of land, but instead a PERCENTAGE OF THE YIELD demanded by the Nobility from the peasants. More akin to the taxes that Obama seeks than to the rents paid for an apartment.

Leftism is predicated in equal parts upon ignorance and dishonesty.

Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

You left out the quailifier than changes the whole meaning of Smith's statement:

When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this.

Of course, Smith didn't believe real wealth would become stationary in a market economy.

Another colossal FAIL for you.

Actually what he says is "When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary".

The rest of your "Smith didn't believe..." is not in his book nor part of the conversation.

You're obviously a moron who can't comprehend simple English.

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

You haven't got a clue about what Smith is saying.

 

[IDNeon]

Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

You left out the quailifier than changes the whole meaning of Smith's statement:

When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this.

Of course, Smith didn't believe real wealth would become stationary in a market economy.

Another colossal FAIL for you.

Actually what he says is "When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary".

The rest of your "Smith didn't believe..." is not in his book nor part of the conversation.

You're obviously a moron who can't comprehend simple English.

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

You haven't got a clue about what Smith is saying.

It's pretty obvious what he's saying.

He says that it is the condition of wages to be reduced by Capitalist forces and that to in turn reduce people to starvation.

Considering the miseries of Victorian England, the mass starvation of the Irish (which was no accident but was a planned incident), and the current 1% owning 60% of America....

I'd say Adam Smith continues to prove himself right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

We have a bit of an impasse: I have read Smith, you have read KOS on what you are to think about Smith. Do you understand the distinction between these two.

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

Anyone claiming Adam Smith was a Marxist, or that his observations supported Marxism, is a complete moron.

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

Smith acknowledges here that supply and demand affect wages in menial labor. (Though I am not sure what point you imagine you are scoring.) Marx restating the principles of Smith, add nothing to the discussion.


The flaw in the analysis of Smith, as pointed out by Say, is the failure to acknowledge the skill of the worker. If all workers are interchangeable, then this observation is valid. However, if certain workers have skills needed for production then "a scarcity of talent leads to inflation of wages." - J. Say.

 

[bripat9643]

You left out the quailifier than changes the whole meaning of Smith's statement:

When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this.

Of course, Smith didn't believe real wealth would become stationary in a market economy.

Another colossal FAIL for you.

Actually what he says is "When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary".

The rest of your "Smith didn't believe..." is not in his book nor part of the conversation.

You're obviously a moron who can't comprehend simple English.

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

You haven't got a clue about what Smith is saying.

It's pretty obvious what he's saying.

He says that it is the condition of wages to be reduced by Capitalist forces and that to in turn reduce people to starvation.

Considering the miseries of Victorian England, the mass starvation of the Irish (which was no accident but was a planned incident), and the current 1% owning 60% of America....

I'd say Adam Smith continues to prove himself right.

You're ignoring this whole part, moron:

The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably.
​

What you're referring to is what he believes happen when the economy isn't growing. The question one has to wonder is why you believe the economy doesn't grow. We have 200 years of history where the economy grew.

 

[IDNeon]

[
Look I understand you have trouble grasping basic concepts such as if Smith is critical of rent of "PRODUCE" how much more critical is he of RENT OF HOUSING?

We have a bit of an impasse: I have read Smith, you have read KOS on what you are to think about Smith. Do you understand the distinction between these two.

But let me just torpedo your stupid argument against Smith being a "Marxist":

Anyone claiming Adam Smith was a Marxist, or that his observations supported Marxism, is a complete moron.

[261] The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 11 The Rent of Land

The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity. Should supply greatly exceed demand, a section of the workers sinks into beggary or starvation. The worker’s existence is thus brought under the same condition as the existence of every other commodity. The worker has become a commodity, and it is a bit of luck for him if he can find a buyer. And the demand on which the life of the worker depends, depends on the whim of the rich and the capitalists

Marx 1844 Wages of Labour

Uh oh! You mean they agreed about this fundamental premise?

Smith acknowledges here that supply and demand affect wages in menial labor. (Though I am not sure what point you imagine you are scoring.) Marx restating the principles of Smith, add nothing to the discussion.


The flaw in the analysis of Smith, as pointed out by Say, is the failure to acknowledge the skill of the worker. If all workers are interchangeable, then this observation is valid. However, if certain workers have skills needed for production then "a scarcity of talent leads to inflation of wages." - J. Say.

You take me too seriously when I say "Smith was a Marxist", because obviously Smith lived before Marx was writing.

But it is obvious Marx had an equal understanding if not better understanding of Smith than YOU did and applied smith's hypothetical to actual reality of pre-Victorian and later Victorian England.

What it adds is a lot. It means that any fair understanding of Smith in the observation of the real conditions of the working class lends strongly to a Marxist interpretation of events.

Does Marx have it all correct? No, but is he certainly correct about the problems of Capitalism and how they keep constantly destroying millions of people's lives for the benefit of a small minority? YES.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

Imagine that? Marx repeating concepts in the 1840's that were popularized in the 1770's by Smith?

Are you sufficiently shocked?

 

[IDNeon]

Actually what he says is "When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary".

The rest of your "Smith didn't believe..." is not in his book nor part of the conversation.

You're obviously a moron who can't comprehend simple English.

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

You haven't got a clue about what Smith is saying.

It's pretty obvious what he's saying.

He says that it is the condition of wages to be reduced by Capitalist forces and that to in turn reduce people to starvation.

Considering the miseries of Victorian England, the mass starvation of the Irish (which was no accident but was a planned incident), and the current 1% owning 60% of America....

I'd say Adam Smith continues to prove himself right.

You're ignoring this whole part, moron:

The wages of the labourer, it has already been shown, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably.
​

What you're referring to is what he believes happen when the economy isn't growing. The question one has to wonder is why you believe the economy doesn't grow. We have 200 years of history where the economy grew.

The economy hasn't been growing for the last 40 years. Subtract deficit spending from the US GDP and the economy has retracted on average about 3.5% per year.

Is it any wonder that the 1% have become bloatedly more wealthy compared to everyone else in the last 40 years? NO.

We can both agree on the actual forces for why this is happening, no economic growth. But since the world economy grew at an imperceptible 0.05% for most of human history it is impossible to expect that 1% growth rates are sustainable, let alone 4% growth rates and beyond.

Therefore the post-take-off growth periods are what needs to be "communistic" to ensure that 100% of people have a fair share.

In today's industrialized world you threaten revolution without such provisions.

 

[IDNeon]

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

Imagine that? Marx repeating concepts in the 1840's that were popularized in the 1770's by Smith?

Are you sufficiently shocked?

No, but the premise of the thread is that Marx is supporting views by Smith and that Smith's views are therefore "marxian" which is true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You take me too seriously when I say "Smith was a Marxist", because obviously Smith lived before Marx was writing.

There is a predilection of the left to usurp the minds of the right. I understand this, what other option has the left?

But it is obvious Marx had an equal understanding if not better understanding of Smith than YOU did and applied smith's hypothetical to actual reality of pre-Victorian and later Victorian England.

Karl Marx was a pampered intellectual of the Prussian Jews. Sent to the finest schools, he obviously was well read of the writings of Smith.

What it adds is a lot. It means that any fair understanding of Smith in the observation of the real conditions of the working class lends strongly to a Marxist interpretation of events.

Does Marx have it all correct? No, but is he certainly correct about the problems of Capitalism and how they keep constantly destroying millions of people's lives for the benefit of a small minority? YES.

Where you fail is in causation. Marx was a well educated man, the original professional student who never engaged in real life, cloistered in ivy and insulated from reality. Marx wrote of Germany, not England, His exile to England was not the foundation of his work. Capital Vol. 1 is particularly influenced by Berlin and the labor movement there.

Marx had very different views than Smith.

 

[bripat9643]

Smith clearly says that conditions are often favorable to the "rentier" and Capitalist to reduce wages to starvation levels.

Marx says the same thing...

HMMM

Imagine that? Marx repeating concepts in the 1840's that were popularized in the 1770's by Smith?

Are you sufficiently shocked?

He thinks the because Marx regurgitated some of what Smith wrote that Marx is correct.

This guy is a riot, isn't he?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The economy hasn't been growing for the last 40 years.

One of the more stupid statements I've ever read.

Try this paraphrase of Andrew Grove; the capital created by the digital revolution equals or exceeds all capital prior to that time.

Subtract deficit spending from the US GDP and the economy has retracted on average about 3.5% per year.

Bunk - a complete fabrication. And idiotic - Apple Computer alone contributes more than that.

Is it any wonder that the 1% have become bloatedly more wealthy compared to everyone else in the last 40 years? NO.

We can both agree on the actual forces for why this is happening, no economic growth. But since the world economy grew at an imperceptible 0.05% for most of human history it is impossible to expect that 1% growth rates are sustainable, let alone 4% growth rates and beyond.

Therefore the post-take-off growth periods are what needs to be "communistic" to ensure that 100% of people have a fair share.

In today's industrialized world you threaten revolution without such provisions.

The left offers a "fair share" of ever diminishing resources.

From 1985 through 1995, America experience unprecedented growth, the digital revolution lifted the nation and much of the free world. We stand at the dawn of another, even larger technological miracle, bio genetics. Again it is America who is the unprecedented leader of the world.

Enjoy the hatred and violence that Obama has created these last 6 years, it is short lived, the marvel that is capitalism is about to again lift all boats to enormous levels. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Our lives will again change, again for the better. Your 19th century thinking will drift even further from relevant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He thinks the because Marx regurgitated some of what Smith wrote that Marx is correct.

This guy is a riot, isn't he?

Yes, he certainly is.

Much of what Marx wrote in Capital is valid. Marx offered a valuable glimpse into the labor movement of 19th century Germany.

Where many American leftists stumble is in their failure to grasp that this is not 19th century Germany. We have no Prussian court doling favors to Barons and Princes.

 

[bripat9643]

He thinks the because Marx regurgitated some of what Smith wrote that Marx is correct.

This guy is a riot, isn't he?

Yes, he certainly is.

Much of what Marx wrote in Capital is valid. Marx offered a valuable glimpse into the labor movement of 19th century Germany.

Where many American leftists stumble is in their failure to grasp that this is not 19th century Germany. We have no Prussian court doling favors to Barons and Princes.

I have to disagree. The labor theory of value is obviously dead wrong, and most of capital is based on that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For the same reasons that capitalism inevitably reduces humans to chattle slavery.

100% stupid and liberal. China just switched to capitalism and instead of 60 million slowly starving to death, 60 million can now afford cars.
A liberal will be too stupid to have heard of China let alone to know what goes on there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Much of what Marx wrote in Capital is valid.

name the most significant thing that was valid or admit to being 100% mistaken

 

[IDNeon]

Much of what Marx wrote in Capital is valid.

name the most significant thing that was valid or admit to being 100% mistaken

Marx said that Capital will devalue the labor of wage-laborers and deprive them of ever being able to own a share in the Capital with which they work and produce the profits by which Capitalists live.

Sounds exactly like modern America.