Adam Smith was a Marxist

[Uncensored2008]

You're just trolling, so, be gone.

Two things;

1. Blow me
2. If there is a troll here, it's you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Utopias don't work. They were even tried here. Now you know.

Your meme fails to address or grasp what I wrote.

Using out of context quotes from Smith, leftist hate sites have been able to claim the most fantastical fictions. I pointed out that Smith was a Scot for a reason, while London may have been well into the Renaissance, but Edinburgh was stilled mired in feudalism. Smith rightfully had distrust of the landed gentry and the concepts of inheritance,

The Communist sites you rely on attempt to portray this as an opposition to Capitalism by Smith- which is an absurdity to anyone who has actually read Smith (reading memes from KOS that mention Smith is not the same as reading "Wealth of Nations.") Smith opposed feudalism and the remnants still present in Scotland. Feudal Lords centrally planning the Industrial Revolution was the worst of all possible worlds.Smith wrote against inheritance not to deny the concept of property rights, quite the opposite, to wrest property from an entrenched nobility.

This also touches on landlords. The Communist hate sites love to quote Smith regarding landlords to stir up the stupid and create resentment to paying the rent on the Section 8 apartment they live in. But this is not at all what Smith advocated against, the "landlords" he spoke of were literal Feudal lords imposing on a serf caste who could never rise above their station.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope, Smith. I used the wrong name.

That would be what we call a "Freudian Slip."

After all, it is Marx who forms the basis of what you advocate, not Smith.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope, Smith. I used the wrong name.

That would be what we call a "Freudian Slip."

After all, it is Marx who forms the basis of what you advocate, not Smith.

What I advocate is common sense, which means you need those two, and many others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's probably what Smith meant? What makes Say any more of an expert on what Smith meant than I am?

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Say is the author of Say's law, so it is beyond amusing that the Communists would attempt to use him to support their fallacious ideas. (Say's law, Supply creates it's own demand.)

But Say was THE expert on Smith:

{Say was the best-known expositor of Adam Smith’s views in Europe and America. His Traité d’économie politique was translated into English and used as a textbook in England and the United States. But Say did not agree with Adam Smith on everything. In particular, he took issue with Smith’s labor theory of value. Say was one of the first economists to have the insight that the value of a good derives from its utility to the user and not from the labor spent in producing it.}

Jean-Baptiste Say The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics Library of Economics and Liberty

It was he who popularized Smith among Americans and influenced the great Capital Society of the 19th century. Jean-Baptiste Say was an avid Capitalist, the hate sites attempting to recreate Say in the image of Marx are simply dishonest - as leftists tend to be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

His only appeal is that Smith said more was okay, and J.B would go even beyond that. As for what makes him a better judge, well, he both read and understood him apparently, something we cannot say for you my little infant.

Once again, you know nothing of Say or Smith, and are posting memes from the hate sites. Without historical context and whom Say was referencing - i.e. those who had been granted lands by monarchs, the words are meaningless - or worse, as the leftist distortion exemplifies. Say was popular during the time of the French Revolution, his views were moderate in context.

It appears that the left is engaged in a brutal rape of history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What I advocate is common sense, which means you need those two, and many others.

You advocate what KOS and ThinkProgress tell you to advocate, using fabricated and distorted history as a foundation for the idiocy you promote.

 

[bripat9643]

Did Smith and Marx agree on which class produces value?
"In the following citations, we discover that what Adam Smith wrote in the 1770s is not so distant from what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would write 70 years later in the famous Communist Manifesto.

"According to Adam Smith: 'The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit.”'|1.|

"In Marxist terms, this means that through their labour workers reproduce part of the constant capital |2.| (the quantity of raw materials, energy, percentage of the value of the technical machinery, and so on, that are accounted for in the manufacturing of a given commodity) to which must be added the variable capital corresponding to their wages and the profit made by capitalists, which Karl Marx called surplus value.

"Karl Marx and Adam Smith – each in his own time – both considered that it is the workers not the bosses/capitalists who produce value."

http://cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx

No supporter of capitalism ever claimed the workers don't add value to the product. There wouldn't be any reason to hire them if they didn't. What economics says is that value isn't determined by the quantity of labor invested. That was Marx's theory, and it's obviously wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What I advocate is common sense, which means you need those two, and many others.

You advocate what KOS and ThinkProgress tell you to advocate, using fabricated and distorted history as a foundation for the idiocy you promote.

Utter BS, but it hardly surprises me that you think so my little moron.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did Smith and Marx agree on which class produces value?
"In the following citations, we discover that what Adam Smith wrote in the 1770s is not so distant from what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would write 70 years later in the famous Communist Manifesto.

"According to Adam Smith: 'The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit.”'|1.|

"In Marxist terms, this means that through their labour workers reproduce part of the constant capital |2.| (the quantity of raw materials, energy, percentage of the value of the technical machinery, and so on, that are accounted for in the manufacturing of a given commodity) to which must be added the variable capital corresponding to their wages and the profit made by capitalists, which Karl Marx called surplus value.

"Karl Marx and Adam Smith – each in his own time – both considered that it is the workers not the bosses/capitalists who produce value."

http://cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx

No supporter of capitalism ever claimed the workers don't add value to the product. There wouldn't be any reason to hire them if they didn't. What economics says is that value isn't determined by the quantity of labor invested. That was Marx's theory, and it's obviously wrong.

Value is like beauty, it's an eye of the beholder thing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

His only appeal is that Smith said more was okay, and J.B would go even beyond that. As for what makes him a better judge, well, he both read and understood him apparently, something we cannot say for you my little infant.

Once again, you know nothing of Say or Smith, and are posting memes from the hate sites. Without historical context and whom Say was referencing - i.e. those who had been granted lands by monarchs, the words are meaningless - or worse, as the leftist distortion exemplifies. Say was popular during the time of the French Revolution, his views were moderate in context.

It appears that the left is engaged in a brutal rape of history.

Projection...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Utter BS,

Yes, what you post is indeed "utter bs," completely ignorant distortions.

but it hardly surprises me that you think so my little moron.

I have a depth of knowledge in classical economics.

You do not. I rely on decades of study of the classical economists. You rely on the meme posted by Alternet and MoveOn.

The results are clear to anyone perusing this thread.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Back to the bone boys:

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?

 

[Uncensored2008]

His only appeal is that Smith said more was okay, and J.B would go even beyond that. As for what makes him a better judge, well, he both read and understood him apparently, something we cannot say for you my little infant.

Once again, you know nothing of Say or Smith, and are posting memes from the hate sites. Without historical context and whom Say was referencing - i.e. those who had been granted lands by monarchs, the words are meaningless - or worse, as the leftist distortion exemplifies. Say was popular during the time of the French Revolution, his views were moderate in context.

It appears that the left is engaged in a brutal rape of history.

Projection...

Knowledge.

You seek to substitute slogans from the hates sites that do your thinking for you, for actual knowledge,

It doesn't work. You convince no one save your fellow leftists - who are equally ignorant as you.

"Wealth of Nations" http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf is a bit like the Bible, it can be used to support anything, using out of context quotes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

His only appeal is that Smith said more was okay, and J.B would go even beyond that. As for what makes him a better judge, well, he both read and understood him apparently, something we cannot say for you my little infant.

Once again, you know nothing of Say or Smith, and are posting memes from the hate sites. Without historical context and whom Say was referencing - i.e. those who had been granted lands by monarchs, the words are meaningless - or worse, as the leftist distortion exemplifies. Say was popular during the time of the French Revolution, his views were moderate in context.

It appears that the left is engaged in a brutal rape of history.

Projection...

Knowledge.

You seek to substitute slogans from the hates sites that do your thinking for you, for actual knowledge,

It doesn't work. You convince no one save your fellow leftists - who are equally ignorant as you.

"Wealth of Nations" http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf is a bit like the Bible, it can be used to support anything, using out of context quotes.

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

 

[bripat9643]

Did Smith and Marx agree on which class produces value?
"In the following citations, we discover that what Adam Smith wrote in the 1770s is not so distant from what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would write 70 years later in the famous Communist Manifesto.

"According to Adam Smith: 'The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit.”'|1.|

"In Marxist terms, this means that through their labour workers reproduce part of the constant capital |2.| (the quantity of raw materials, energy, percentage of the value of the technical machinery, and so on, that are accounted for in the manufacturing of a given commodity) to which must be added the variable capital corresponding to their wages and the profit made by capitalists, which Karl Marx called surplus value.

"Karl Marx and Adam Smith – each in his own time – both considered that it is the workers not the bosses/capitalists who produce value."

http://cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx

No supporter of capitalism ever claimed the workers don't add value to the product. There wouldn't be any reason to hire them if they didn't. What economics says is that value isn't determined by the quantity of labor invested. That was Marx's theory, and it's obviously wrong.

Value is like beauty, it's an eye of the beholder.

Not according to your hero Karl Marx.

 

[bripat9643]

His only appeal is that Smith said more was okay, and J.B would go even beyond that. As for what makes him a better judge, well, he both read and understood him apparently, something we cannot say for you my little infant.

Once again, you know nothing of Say or Smith, and are posting memes from the hate sites. Without historical context and whom Say was referencing - i.e. those who had been granted lands by monarchs, the words are meaningless - or worse, as the leftist distortion exemplifies. Say was popular during the time of the French Revolution, his views were moderate in context.

It appears that the left is engaged in a brutal rape of history.

Projection...

Knowledge.

You seek to substitute slogans from the hates sites that do your thinking for you, for actual knowledge,

It doesn't work. You convince no one save your fellow leftists - who are equally ignorant as you.

"Wealth of Nations" http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf is a bit like the Bible, it can be used to support anything, using out of context quotes.

You don't post knowledge, you post ideology. And I don't post quotes out of context, ever.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did Smith and Marx agree on which class produces value?
"In the following citations, we discover that what Adam Smith wrote in the 1770s is not so distant from what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would write 70 years later in the famous Communist Manifesto.

"According to Adam Smith: 'The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit.”'|1.|

"In Marxist terms, this means that through their labour workers reproduce part of the constant capital |2.| (the quantity of raw materials, energy, percentage of the value of the technical machinery, and so on, that are accounted for in the manufacturing of a given commodity) to which must be added the variable capital corresponding to their wages and the profit made by capitalists, which Karl Marx called surplus value.

"Karl Marx and Adam Smith – each in his own time – both considered that it is the workers not the bosses/capitalists who produce value."

http://cadtm.org/Adam-Smith-is-closer-to-Karl-Marx

No supporter of capitalism ever claimed the workers don't add value to the product. There wouldn't be any reason to hire them if they didn't. What economics says is that value isn't determined by the quantity of labor invested. That was Marx's theory, and it's obviously wrong.

Value is like beauty, it's an eye of the beholder.

Not according to your hero Karl Marx.

Not according to Smith either. BFD.

Value = what some idiot will cut a check for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Back to the bone boys:

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?

You're confusing your memes - reread what the hate site claimed, then get back to us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not according to Smith either. BFD.

Value = what some idiot will cut a check for.

"Value is that which a trader will willingly barter the product of his own labor to obtain." - Adam Smith.