Adam Smith was a Marxist

[IDNeon]

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.

1) China is communist you inconsistent pack of shit.
2) The 60 million starvations was Mao's purposeful execution of Peasants, not a result of Communism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Marx said that Capital will devalue the labor of wage-laborers.

stupid!!!! today wage laborers own iphones and flat screen TV's, all the most modern stuff so obviously Marx was 100% wrong. China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty. Does the perfect 100% idiot think escaping deadly poverty is devaluing???


See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) China is communist you inconsistent pack of shit.

Here are two widely acclaimed books on the subject to get the illiterate liberals his ABC's:


"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"

"How China Became Capitalist"

 

[IDNeon]

1) China is communist you inconsistent pack of shit.

Here are two widely acclaimed books on the subject to get the illiterate liberals his ABC's:


"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"

"How China Became Capitalist"

Yup, I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party read those books....

Meanwhile...China is communist.

What part of state owned enterprises and production quotas and fixed wage floors and ceilings etc is not communist?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2) The 60 million starvations was Mao's purposeful execution of Peasants, not a result of Communism.

and I suppose its coincidence that communism slowly killed 60 million in the USSR too!!

Imagine that you've hooked your wagon to the most evil force in human history and you think you're a wonderful guy I'm sure! Do you love HItler too? Do you kow why out liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yup, I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party read those books....

too stupid our subject is not whether the communist party read those books but whether anyone on earth denies that China is hugely privatizing its businesses rather than communizing them. How slow are you??

 

[IDNeon]

2) The 60 million starvations was Mao's purposeful execution of Peasants, not a result of Communism.

and I suppose its coincidence that communism slowly killed 60 million in the USSR too!!

Imagine that you've hooked your wagon to the most evil force in human history and you think you're a wonderful guy I'm sure! Do you love HItler too? Do you kow why out liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin?

It didn't. Actually.

And yes it was coincidence. Lenin and Stalin both instituted purposeful genocide campaigns to a limited extent, it was doutbfully ever as extreme as US propaganda made it out to be.

But that's like saying that the American genocide of 10s of millions of Native Americans is a natural result of Capitalism when it is not.

 

[boilermaker55]

Why? Because those that horde capital through exploitation don't deserve their full capital gains.

labor is the superior of capital??
if so why does labor need to steal capital at the point of a gun?

 

[IDNeon]

Yup, I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party read those books....

too stupid our subject is not whether the communist party read those books but whether anyone on earth denies that China is hugely privatizing its businesses rather than communizing them. How slow are you??

China doesn't have privatized "businesses" except in the idea that a person is leased a business from the State in order to make a profit from it.

That's like saying a "tax farmer" is the Emperor, no, he just is given the right to collect taxes on behalf of the emperor an in exchange for efficiency he can keep the rest.

China still owns ALL capital on behalf of ALL the Chinese, in China if the Communist Polit Buro does not like what you're doing with your "private" enterprise they will take it and give it to someone else.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And yes it was coincidence. Lenin and Stalin both instituted purposeful genocide campaigns to a limited extent, it was doutbfully ever as extreme as US propaganda made it out to be.

1) nice to see a typical American liberal minimize genocide
2) The very liberal Mao/Stalin genocides were necessary to help folks accept their liberal slavery. It was for their own good in the long run- right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Much of what Marx wrote in Capital is valid.

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

Edward;

I am far more Capitalist than you. Ignorance is not the means of promoting Laissez Faire theory. Marx observed much that was accurate, particularly the working conditions in factories;

{“What is a working-day? What is the length of time during which capital may consume the labour-power whose daily value it buys? How far may the working-day be extended beyond the working-time necessary for the reproduction of labour-power itself?” It has been seen that to these questions capital replies: the working-day contains the full 24 hours, with the deduction of the few hours of repose without which labour-power absolutely refuses its services again. Hence it is self-evident that the labourer is nothing else, his whole life through, than labour-power, that therefore all his disposable time is by nature and law labour-time, to be devoted to the self-expansion of capital. Time for education, for intellectual development, for the fulfilling of social functions and for social intercourse, for the free-play of his bodily and mental activity, even the rest time of Sunday (and that in a country of Sabbatarians!) [72] — moonshine!}

Economic Manuscripts Capital Vol. I - Chapter Ten

Marx often observed the "what" but generally did not identify the "why."

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Given that about 80% of Americans are invested in stocks and bonds at some level, it's clear that Marx was astoundingly wrong in this.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You boys having fun? That's the point remember, that and learning something from this little exercise.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Actually the point is to show that even bloody Adam Smith would be called a Marxist these days, since so few know Marx and so few know Smith. If they knew them they would stop calling everything decent in economics Marxism. The rich paying more? Smithism not Marxism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1) China is communist you inconsistent pack of shit.

China is a command economy, that is certain.

2) The 60 million starvations was Mao's purposeful execution of Peasants, not a result of Communism.

Mao found that peasants were incompatible with Communism, so he murdered them. How is that anything but a result of Communism? When people cease to have value as individuals, then the acts of Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Ortega, Castro, Kim, et al are inevitable.

 

[georgephillip]

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

"Value 'in use' is the usefulness of this commodity, its utility. A classical paradox often comes up when considering this type of value. In the words of Adam Smith:

"The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called 'value in use ;' the other, 'value in exchange.'

"The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use.

"Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it.

"A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter IV)

"Value 'in exchange' is the relative proportion with which this commodity exchanges for another commodity (in other words, its price in the case of money). It is relative to labor as explained by Adam Smith..."

Labor theory of value - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

"Value 'in use' is the usefulness of this commodity, its utility. A classical paradox often comes up when considering this type of value. In the words of Adam Smith:

"The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called 'value in use ;' the other, 'value in exchange.'

"The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use.

"Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it.

"A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter IV)

"Value 'in exchange' is the relative proportion with which this commodity exchanges for another commodity (in other words, its price in the case of money). It is relative to labor as explained by Adam Smith..."

Labor theory of value - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Gold is of no value when what you need is a potato, and no one will trade you for it. Value in the real world is how big a check will you cut me.

 

[guno]

Marx was one of the greatest economists. his communist manifesto (below in cartoon form for out right wingers)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Marx was one of the greatest economists. his communist manifesto (below in cartoon form for out right wingers)

Batshit, go play with the turds in public toilets, and let the grown ups talk...

 

[georgephillip]

Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society,

The rich also have a tendency to gamble with their disposable income once tax rates fall below a 50% marginal rate. It would seem the very rich require heavy taxation for economies to prosper and for the wages of workers to rise. When taxes for the rich are cut, workers suffer, and the economy turns into a casino.