So why did they invent _Market Socialism_? It's because _without prices there can be no efficient allocation of labor_! If you can't stand Mises, read Oskar Lange, a proponent of market socialism. Yeah, _READ IT_!
Classical liberals embraced capitalism as part of a political-economic system which provided for the mutual, non-coercive satisfaction of needs between _two consenting parties_ amidst competitors in an _open market_.
Talk about deliberate misconstrual and lying to the public!
History has shown that economies without markets don't work because the prices contain information and aren't just advertisements for how evil capitalist pigs are exploiting the proletariat and alienating laborers.
Hmm.. Odd I agree with Your title of the video. Smith did use a labor theory of value, which logically would lead a consistent thinker to become some sort of socialist.
I think it was Walter Block from the LVMI That did a pretty good lecture on Smith and his short comings. But.. then I disagree, I Smith did write in support of free markets.
Topics: Terrorism, War, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, About the END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com, etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc3.yolasite.com, etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com, announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com, etc.
I also should of said the pie grows, and as your slice get's fractionally smaller, the total wight of the slice received is larger (because the pie grew, as long as it beats inflation the new slice will be heavier, or more wealthy).*
Marginal utility sets price, and labor costs are only significant to pricing and cost of production in sectors with very low profit margains, like farming and construction. When we were a majority agrarian society, like Smith lived in, it was easy to suffer under the labor theory of value fallacy, as almost no one had large profit margains. Mercantilism was reserved for the powerful, and largely came after his works. So, he did suggest a few wrong things...like all the parts you would like!.lol
But you suffer from the fallacy the economy is a zero-sum game, like you learned economics from 'Wall Street' the movie. It's provable that the pie (GDP) grows, and even as your slice (income share percentage) get's fractionally smaller, your standard of living (total real compensation) rises and poverty levels fall...unless you keep moving the goal posts, like you do. There is no zero-sum game, and the labor theory of value all these classical economists believed in was wrong.
The quote from Book 1 Chapter 8, should be used to apply to the fact capital accumulation leads directly to technology, which leads directly to increased productivity, which leads DIRECTLY to less poverty by way of raised compensation above the rate of inflation, i. e., higher standard of living. In other words, if the rich being rich helps the poor indirectly, then so be it. You even would accumulate acapital, just in State hands, misallocating it in endless bereaucracy. No accum=hier poverty.
What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII, p.96, para. 36.
To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI, Conclusion of the Chapter, p.267, para. 10.
In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter II, p.329, para. 106.
It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy...What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV Chapter II, pp. 456-7, paras. 11-12.
It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter I, p. 22, para. 10.
Equality is not a goal of free markets. He did not believe there should NOT be a Division of Labor, he was in favor of the Division of Labor, you should read him sometime. DOL is specialization. If you think specialization sucks, then go to a barber/doctor when you need surgery. He TOTALLY supported specialization, i. e. Division of Labor. AND I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE 900 page work, series of books, Wealth of Nations...
Equality is not a goal of free markets. He did not believe there should NOT be a Division of Labor, he was in favor of the Division of Labor, you should read him sometime. DOL is specialization. If you think specialization sucks, then go to a barber/doctor when you need surgery. He TOTALLY supported specialization, i. e. Division of Labor. AND I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE 900 page work, series of books, Wealth of Nations...
You realize of course, that Murray Rothbard despised Adam Smith right? Smith was also not the founder of capitalism or economics. Economic science began at the university of Salamanca in he 15th century. You also leave out Fredic Bastitat, who is also considered a classical liberal, who did believe in laissez-faire
the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgement with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour. - Adam Smith
Book 1 Chapter 1 Im looking at it right now. You claim to own this/read it so go look it up for yourself. You should read the book again.
@DerrEinzige keep reading... hundreds of pages later he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits. He did argue for markets but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty markets will lead to perfect equality.
Either or I never really cared for Adam Smith I didnt finish his book. I've been to busy. I'd take Max Stirner on the other hand any day. To bad he only wrote one worth while book.
Even a quick search on the Mises Institute website of the keywords, “Adam Smith”, “equality”, “egalitarianism”, “perfect competition”, or “Chicago School” would have shown anyone that the contentions made in this post are a complete and utter falsehood; much less the ample scholarly work done documenting their contention that Smith was a plagiarist who set back economic science substantially by muddying previous works done on political economy (particularly Richard Cantillon's "Essai").
Mises held an unshakeable “a priori” approach to economics and it was defended by Rothbard in his essay, “In Defense of Extreme Apriorism”.
Grouping these two together is either a terrible mistake, or indicative of ignorance of the actual work that they have done (I strongly believe it is the latter).
I totally disagree with you. I have had personal interaction with many of them; and that is a gross misrepresentation of reality. They hold different methodological and historical views than most; but to claim they are "stupid" is outright ridiculous. Defeat their arguments on their own terms if you want challenge them. Do not, like the creator of this video, create a false conception of what they believe without having an iota of conception of what they have actually written.
In what way do I not know what I am talking about? My comments towards this video were specifically referenced and made no value judgment about the beliefs of the creator of this video. I pointed at that the accusations he was making about the Austrian school were wrong (which they are).
Stating they are not stupid is not "defending them";I am attempting to address reality while you're trying to address a fiction. The man who wrote Human Action wasn't ignorant
He was extremely well read in the economic literature of his day, as well was Murray Rothbard and many Austrian scholars of today. Mises was a significant intellectual figure during his day. His work, Socialism, completely rocked the economic literature world whenever it was released.
Trying to understand and appreciate the contributions of individuals to ideas and history is rather important. You seek nothing of the sort; you come off merely as a petty propagandist.
The Austrian approach was purposely unscientific and completely irrelevant to any field of inquiry.
Specifically, with regard to Human Action, it's still accepted by Austrians and presents absurd postulates that ignore more than a century of behavioral research. For example, it is claimed there is no such thing as cardinal utility or indifference.
So, if you differ in opinion, then you're also stupid and completely unworthy of further attention.
Ludwig von Mises was notorious in pointing out the inequality in knowledge and ability of different people and its importance in the creation of the division of labor (the division of labor arises for mutual benefit between people that have unequal abilities at producing certain goods or services).
The Mises Institute has a highly contentious relationship with economists of the Chicago School variety for their econometric approach to economics.
Murray Rothbard, one of the most prolific expositors “anarcho-capitalism” wrote the above mentioned essay in his “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought”. In it, he discusses the very things that you mentioned in your attack on the “stateless-capitalists”.
A collection of Rothbard’s work pertaining to his opposition to egalitarianism has been published as “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays”.
As someone that has read around the common anarcho-capitalist literature... I don't think you are representing the contentions they make very well. I would say that you are not familiar with the literature at all, actually.
Anarcho-capitalists aren't egalitarians, they don't believe in "perfect competition", they do not associate around the University of Chicago (who has completely different methodologies than Misesians), and they disdain Adam Smith, writing articles like "The Adam Smith Myth"
The bottom line is that most people do not want to live under a Marxist economy. I do not wish to live in your system, whereupon the State can dictate what I am "allowed" to have. I do not believe that I am intrinsically indebted to society by virtue of my birth. I do not wish to live in a system where the collective decides upon my economic fate. Capitalism may not be "perfect" (there is no "perfect" system), but it is far superior to the collectivist models that you seem to prefer.
If you ever worked in a factory, like I did, you'll know that the division of labor is not absolute. Managers cross train workers so that if someone has holiday or is sick then they can be more easily replaced.
Adam Smith did cite the division of labor as a source of growth for an economy. Capitalism, however, is system of savings and accrual of capital. It has no ethics. You claim "this or that" is the opposite of capitalism when..anything goes in capitalism. Be imaginative.. don't hate
MaoistRebelNews2 I have mixed feelings about the Israel/Palestine situation, but from your profile I can see that you support Palestine. I would like to know this: Why do communists come out in support of Muslims? THERE IS NO COMMON THEOLOGICAL MEETING GROUND at all. Muslims believe that non-Muslims are hell-bound. Period. Apostasy (which Communism/Marxism would definitely qualify as in a Muslim-majority country) is punishable by death! Is capitalism or Islam a greater enemy?
Talking of division of labour, didnt Marx himself exploit it? He would do the mental and intellectual job of laying out a theory, the physically difficult job of actually rising up in revolution would have to be carried out by the proletariat masses. Marx had a bourgeois childhood and married into aristocracy, the classes his followers have grown to hate. i will repeat,communism (with a small c)is a great in theory but its implementation invariably degenerates into Communism (with a capital C)
How can Communists/Marxists/Socialists get on youtube (created by an "evil stock-market-listed corporation" Google) with a clear conscience? Don't you use Internet Explorer (created by an "evil stock-market-listed corporation" Microsoft)? There should be some cognitive dissonance, no? Maybe you use a web browser and computer created by a utopian commune where there is no division of labor...Can you please let me know?
@anoninus "How can Communists/Marxists/Socialists get on youtube (created by an "evil stock-market-listed corporation" Google) with a clear conscience?" maybe because they use it to gain greater consent for their ideology that when successful would eliminate "the evil stock listed company" "cognitive dissonance, no?" err no. they don't profit from the fortunes of google or microsoft either directly or indirectly so wheres the contradiction?
@anoninus ""evil stock-market-listed corporation" Google) with a clear conscience?" perhaps beacuse they are using those evil stock based companies to spread there message and build consent for their ideology. "some cognitive dissonance, no?" no there shouldn't be. They don't share in the profits of those companies in anyway so where is the contradiction? there isn't any. It would only be a problem if the Marxist A, did receive part of the profits generated and then B spent it on private use
@CommissarRed I only see people lining up outside the US/UK/Germany embassy around the world hoping to get in...These countries are more capitalist than communist. Have you seen folks lining up outside Cuban/Vietnamese/Nepalese embassy, hoping to get in? communism (with a small c with no state actors as originally hoped by Marx) invariably degenerates into Communism (with a capital C), one party rule, command economy, politburo politics and ruthless suppresion of dissents. Prove otherwise.
@CommissarRed 1st post: Communism does not lead to innovation of any kind. You need a free-wheeling creatively destructive economy for innovation (Google,Microsoft,Intel) that provides a means for earning above-average profits. 2nd post: There isnt one model country that Marxists can point out to that can convince non-believers of its inherent virtue.
@anoninus "1st post: Communism does not lead to innovation of any kind." that wasn't what you said at all. your first comment was about an ethical dilemma that only exists in your head, Second of all thats completely false, every system of governance has produce scientific and technological innovations, the Soviet Union were the first to get to space, and Iran and Saudi Arabia published thousands of scientific research papers each year. To say only Capitalism achieves innovation is a lie.
@CommissarRed "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
@CommissarRed I cannot understand why a marxist (who ought to believe all religions are opiate of the masses, which actually I agree with and support whole-heartedly) will ever bring up Iran and Saudi Arabia in support of his opinion...they believe that you are going to hell for being a non-believer of their theology, for Marx's sake!!!
@anoninus congratulatiions for missing the point entirely. I sadi other systems not systems I agree just other systems. You were claiming that only market capitalism can give innovation which a complete lie, to demonstrate this I gave examples of DIFFERENT systems that still produce Technological and scientific advancement, that is all there is no value judgement at all.
@anoninus Yeah understanding something is difficult when you miss the point huh? Your claim was that Market Capitalism and that alone gives the world innovations, this is quite simply a lie, to show this a mentioned various technological and scientific achievements by other systems. Thats all I was not making a value judgement they just prove your claim to be false.
@CommissarRed I was expecting you would bring up Soviet space program...do you know that the Soviets imprisoned the father of their space program, Sergey Korolyov, and only referred to him as the "Chief Designer", and wouldnt reveal his identity until after his death? Since YOU brought Soviet Union up, what do you have to say about Stalin's ruthless massacres of fellow communists with whom he disagreed? Nikita Kruschev, card carrying Communist himself, admitted to the atrocities in 1956!!!
@anoninus "Chief Designer" So it was still a technological innovation. "Stalin's ruthless massacres of fellow communists with whom he disagreed" nothing here it has absolutely nothing at all to do with any of your previous comments and is a transparent attempt to shift the topic. A pattern of yours.
@CommissarRed Communist ideas thrive mostly in free-wheeling capitalistic democratic countries which allow for freedom of speech, thankfully...Communism comes a cropper against radical Islam. Case in point...Indonesia, which people know today as the most populous Islamic country...Not many would know that at one point in time Communism held sway here...Communism does not have any answer to radical Islam which is the #1 problem facing the world today.
@anoninus your talking complete nonsense here, though thats nothing new and surprise surprise it has nothing to do with what Either of us are actually talking about. Heres a tip when arguing with someone you have to refute there points and counterpoints, simply shifting the discussion to something that is only tangentially related is called moving the gaol posts and doesn't actually work.
@CommissarRed Please name ONE world-beating company that is head-quartered in a non-free-market, non-capitalist country. Plz refrain from naming any Chinese/Russian company because Russia and China are not Communist/Marxist countries in the true sense. China follows state-capitalism.
@anoninus You are of course joking now. Not only does this have nothing to do with any of your previous posts, it is this yet another attempt to move the goal posts further. Not only but it is a complete and total rigging of the situation. You ask for non free market companies but then also disqualify Russia and China for practising "state capitalism". First if its not free market capitalism then I can use a Chinese example can't I since it ain't a free market economy.
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
@anoninus, yep its called open source software you dimwit. Its free and its built by the community. Plus Youtube is build on voluntary labour. The vast, vast majority of content is made for free. Its an example of how communist entertainment might be produced.
Anyway, my original post (somewhere back there), proves your ignorance. You barely know your enemies beliefs, let alone who they are.
What do you know about my incentives? I've been a socialist. I've seen it's flaws. My values for politics are the same: prosperity and freedom for all. Everything I wanted from socialism, freed markets will provide.
@breakingthe4thwall "freed markets will provide." I've asked this question a number of times and have not received an answer but perhaps you can enlighten me. In a completely free market what stops one very successful group of businessmen from achieving a monopoly and then imposing unfair "policies" on the rest of us as consumers? also on a related note during the transition period whats to stop an already large corporate entity from just assuming the role left by the state?
Your shallow emotionalist propaganda falls short to reality. None of your criticism is even barely based off anything else.
You hate hiearchy, and yet you want a government class. You want to help the poor, and yet you think government magic will create abundance, and ignore incentives and waste. You want freedom, and yet you hate owning your own means of labor. And for the libertarian socialists, you hate government, and yet you ally with statists. Dictatorships fallout, not whither away.
@breakingthe4thwall "Everyone owes me everything" is your distorted view of socialism.
You can champion "individual responsiblity" all you want, but in the end, capitalism simply means: "Fuck you, you're on you're own, and I don't care if you starve."
You don't see any hypocrisy there? That's your distorted view of capitalism. You must be really blind to see the benefits that voluntary trade can have. You don't need government to make sure everyone is fed. Human beings are too social and interdependent, most selfish actions can be beneficial. Besides, what is charity and altruism if it is not voluntary? Free markets are not anti poor.
I don't have a problem with some socialists, if you read any of my other comments.
@breakingthe4thwall That's not a distorted view, that's the truth. Capitalism is completely based on selfishness and greed, capitalists themselves have admitted this. The system is not meant to help the poor, it is not meant to keep everyone fed, it is meant to keep power and wealth within a few select individuals who exploit the masses.
The only reason anarcho-capitalists say the current system isn't capitalism is because it doesn't work the way they want it to.
Apparently he believed in a wacko "HIDDEN HAND" that would right all wrongs in the economy, but since it doesn't actually exist, his system failed and you see the Exploitation of Out-of-Control Capitalism :-P
''Adam Smith one of the heros of the stateless capitalist movement''. Hardly, while he is a mascott for the Adam Smith Institute Croud & other more conservative supporters of markets, the originator of 'stateless' capitalism Murray Rothbard hated Smith.
@tiecuando Adam Smith used the term invisible hand only 3 times total in his entire career. 1st on the subject of astronomy. 2nd in the theroy of Moral Seniments, & 3rd in The Wealth of Nations. If your friend is right (and I am not saying that he is) then it seems likey that he is probably refering to morality or the movements in the heavans rather then the workings of the market.
@tiecuando I do not no what you are talking about, I must have missed some assumed knowledge on my part. What does Smith, nihilism & god have to do with each other?
@Malthus0 Dude, where have you been? A certain segment of the "anarcho" capitalists here on youtube (and stickam) have resorted to moral nihilism. Then after that they tell you why their moral are best.
Noam Chomsky had a really good video on YouTube which goes into great detail regarding how Adam Smith has been misused; unfortunately like so much writing in the area people ignore the philosophy behind it. Reminds me of people who read Milton Friedman but ignore that the fact that at no time does he ever disparage the idea of non-profit organisations or businesses that are owned by the employees.
"If Smith was not the creator of economic theory, neither was he the founder of laissez-faire in political economy. Not only were the scholastics analysts of, and believers in, the free market and critics of government intervention; but the French & Italian economists of the eighteenth century were even more laissez-faire-oriented than Smith.... It turns out that, rather than someone who should be venerated as creator of modern economics or of laissezfaire....a necessary precursor of Karl Marx."
Here's the article, go to the mises site (mises . o r g), search:
"The Adam Smith Myth" by Murray Rothbard.
" Murray Rothbard argues that Adam Smith’s should not be called the founder of economics, nor a theorist who improved on economic science, nor even a consistent defender of the market economy."
Lawl, Austrians and anarchocapitalists do not idolize Adam Smith, and many have pointed out his flaws (like Murray Rothbard). They like him, but he has flaws, and he's not totally free market.
There are more then a few articles criticizing him, they aren't hiding anything.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 It's a question of ethics. If it's voluntary, the minor hierarchy in a market is naturally formed mostly by division of labor and skill. A truly free market will look different then a corporatist market like the one we have.
Plus, free market anarchists are totally chill with any other anarchists setting up whatever system they like, as long as it is voluntary. We can have separate stateless societies, separate law systems, and see what works best for humanity.
@breakingthe4thwall Under a capitalist system, I must work in a hierarchal environment and submit to a boss, or else I starve. There is no "voluntary" in capitalism.
Nope. I mean if you believe that, go ahead, go live in a socialistic society. I choose to work for a certain boss for a certain pay. That's my decision. If I don't like it, I can work for someone else, or I can live on my own. I could even live in the woods.
Plus, not everyone even has a boss. Think about entrepreneurs. Real Estate agents do not have bosses. They have Brokers, but they do not tell them how to run business, they simply manage the office they work in.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 A boss does not hunt me down to look for me to force me to work. He does not take away my free will. When he does, and keeps me from leaving work, I am a slave. But he does not. I desire the money, and he desires my labor. People look for work, the work does not find them.
State socialism does not give me a choice. It's either the collective or some leader. Neither does corporatism, slaves to oligarchy. Socialist Anarchism does. Free Market Anarchism does.
@breakingthe4thwall I'll say it again: the reality for most people in the world is that they HAVE to work for a boss in a hierarchal, authoritarian workplace under capitalism. You HAVE TO or else you starve and go homeless. Even if you can quit your job and become your own boss it still doesn't justify any oppression on any end of the social ladder. People "look for work" because they have to due to the coercion of living without basic needs.
Working is just reality. So are hierarchies. Your ignoring this fact. There will always be people with a higher position everywhere. There are hierarchies in state socialism, and they are much worse then ones in capitalism. At least in a free market, we choose how we want to work. Governments always have worse incentives then the free market, because they do not work with their own money. If a business does not satisfy, it starves. Governments do not.
Your fallaciously conflating institutional corporatism with the free market. It's not the same thing.
What I really don't understand why libertarian socialists, and anarchosocialists are so friendly with marxists, and yet oh no, libertarian and free market anarchists who share the same goal, a goal where NEITHER GROUP HAS TO COMPROMISE, are totally off limits.
@breakingthe4thwall "Your fallaciously conflating institutional corporatism with the free market. It's not the same thing." but how would you stop one from becoming the other? "NEITHER GROUP HAS TO COMPROMISE, are totally off limits." because there not the same at all, have you ever read a single Anarchist text? all you free marketeers do is replace one master for another, when Proudhon stated all property is theft he meant all property that can be used to dominate and exploit others.
Thus whilst they deserve some time, proportionately surely a lot more time is required for those who blithely support really existing capitalism (i.e. state capitalism), and, whilst not supporting the status quo in all its details, unconsciously support its fundamental tenets. Polls in The United States (where I know you are not, but where the core of the problem may be) show that political thinking is reformist rather than radical, with little to no anarchist or left communist elements. Thx4wk.
Everything you state here is accurate, apart from one claim possibly, though you could give the well-known quotes from Smith that support each position you present. In the world we live in, Smith is probably far more misrepresented than Marx. However, why do you address yourself to stateless capitalists/"libertarians"/"anarcho-capitalists" when they constitute (despite YouTube's distorting lens) a tiny minority. Most people, unfortunately, still believe in capitalism (read state capitalism).
There's nothing wrong with capitalism. It's been the known as the fastest and perhaps only sustainable system for economic growth. Pure capitalism doesn't work, but most of the decisions made in any economy should be made by more or less free markets.
The best thing for all is to have primarily capitalist driven growth, but have government guarantee that the basic needs of all are met.
Go fucking figure. I swear to god, most of these free-market capitalists champion Smith when they didn't even read Smith; they read some interpretation of Smith by some bourgeois professor at Columbia University. Same thing with these people bashing on Marx; most of them didn't even read Marx, just what his critics said about him. No wonder our society is fucked.
Yeah, he favored welfare. Milton Friedman did too, in the form of a negative income tax. Conservatives today are to the right of Milton Friedman in some ways. lol
(allocation of labor, resources, etc)
bsadewitz 1 week ago
So why did they invent _Market Socialism_? It's because _without prices there can be no efficient allocation of labor_! If you can't stand Mises, read Oskar Lange, a proponent of market socialism. Yeah, _READ IT_!
bsadewitz 1 week ago
Classical liberals embraced capitalism as part of a political-economic system which provided for the mutual, non-coercive satisfaction of needs between _two consenting parties_ amidst competitors in an _open market_.
Talk about deliberate misconstrual and lying to the public!
History has shown that economies without markets don't work because the prices contain information and aren't just advertisements for how evil capitalist pigs are exploiting the proletariat and alienating laborers.
bsadewitz 1 week ago
lol he has a china flag behind him and their more capitalist than america!
murder5able 1 month ago
I wish you didn't disable ratings. I was rejected by the thumbs down button.
slawdify 1 month ago
Hmm.. Odd I agree with Your title of the video. Smith did use a labor theory of value, which logically would lead a consistent thinker to become some sort of socialist.
I think it was Walter Block from the LVMI That did a pretty good lecture on Smith and his short comings. But.. then I disagree, I Smith did write in support of free markets.
hayesreadmises 1 month ago
Pwned.
AtheismCentral 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK TO READ FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT
Topics: Terrorism, War, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, About the END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com, etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc3.yolasite.com, etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com, announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com, etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
I should of said marginal utility sets VALUE*
I also should of said the pie grows, and as your slice get's fractionally smaller, the total wight of the slice received is larger (because the pie grew, as long as it beats inflation the new slice will be heavier, or more wealthy).*
ProIndividual 10 months ago
Marginal utility sets price, and labor costs are only significant to pricing and cost of production in sectors with very low profit margains, like farming and construction. When we were a majority agrarian society, like Smith lived in, it was easy to suffer under the labor theory of value fallacy, as almost no one had large profit margains. Mercantilism was reserved for the powerful, and largely came after his works. So, he did suggest a few wrong things...like all the parts you would like!.lol
ProIndividual 10 months ago
But you suffer from the fallacy the economy is a zero-sum game, like you learned economics from 'Wall Street' the movie. It's provable that the pie (GDP) grows, and even as your slice (income share percentage) get's fractionally smaller, your standard of living (total real compensation) rises and poverty levels fall...unless you keep moving the goal posts, like you do. There is no zero-sum game, and the labor theory of value all these classical economists believed in was wrong.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
The quote from Book 1 Chapter 8, should be used to apply to the fact capital accumulation leads directly to technology, which leads directly to increased productivity, which leads DIRECTLY to less poverty by way of raised compensation above the rate of inflation, i. e., higher standard of living. In other words, if the rich being rich helps the poor indirectly, then so be it. You even would accumulate acapital, just in State hands, misallocating it in endless bereaucracy. No accum=hier poverty.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
collectivist*
ProIndividual 10 months ago
So, everything you said in this video was BULLSHIT. you're just a propagandist collactivist fraud.
The only good thing yopu said was "read Wealth of Nations."
ProIndividual 10 months ago
What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII, p.96, para. 36.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book V Chapter II Part II, Appendix to Articles I&II, p. 861, para.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI, Conclusion of the Chapter, p.267, para. 10.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
It's obvious you have no clue what your talking about, and haven't read anything but BS.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter II, p.329, para. 106.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy...What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV Chapter II, pp. 456-7, paras. 11-12.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.
The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter I, p. 22, para. 10.
ProIndividual 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Equality is not a goal of free markets. He did not believe there should NOT be a Division of Labor, he was in favor of the Division of Labor, you should read him sometime. DOL is specialization. If you think specialization sucks, then go to a barber/doctor when you need surgery. He TOTALLY supported specialization, i. e. Division of Labor. AND I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE 900 page work, series of books, Wealth of Nations...
ProIndividual 10 months ago
Equality is not a goal of free markets. He did not believe there should NOT be a Division of Labor, he was in favor of the Division of Labor, you should read him sometime. DOL is specialization. If you think specialization sucks, then go to a barber/doctor when you need surgery. He TOTALLY supported specialization, i. e. Division of Labor. AND I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE 900 page work, series of books, Wealth of Nations...
ProIndividual 10 months ago
You realize of course, that Murray Rothbard despised Adam Smith right? Smith was also not the founder of capitalism or economics. Economic science began at the university of Salamanca in he 15th century. You also leave out Fredic Bastitat, who is also considered a classical liberal, who did believe in laissez-faire
Aldaris19 1 year ago
the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgement with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour. - Adam Smith
Book 1 Chapter 1 Im looking at it right now. You claim to own this/read it so go look it up for yourself. You should read the book again.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige keep reading... hundreds of pages later he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits. He did argue for markets but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty markets will lead to perfect equality.
canteluna 1 year ago
@canteluna
Pages?
Either or I never really cared for Adam Smith I didnt finish his book. I've been to busy. I'd take Max Stirner on the other hand any day. To bad he only wrote one worth while book.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
Even a quick search on the Mises Institute website of the keywords, “Adam Smith”, “equality”, “egalitarianism”, “perfect competition”, or “Chicago School” would have shown anyone that the contentions made in this post are a complete and utter falsehood; much less the ample scholarly work done documenting their contention that Smith was a plagiarist who set back economic science substantially by muddying previous works done on political economy (particularly Richard Cantillon's "Essai").
freemebgw 1 year ago
Mises held an unshakeable “a priori” approach to economics and it was defended by Rothbard in his essay, “In Defense of Extreme Apriorism”.
Grouping these two together is either a terrible mistake, or indicative of ignorance of the actual work that they have done (I strongly believe it is the latter).
freemebgw 1 year ago
@freemebgw
The Mises people, many of them seemingly born again, are just stupid.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
@Zeldovich
I totally disagree with you. I have had personal interaction with many of them; and that is a gross misrepresentation of reality. They hold different methodological and historical views than most; but to claim they are "stupid" is outright ridiculous. Defeat their arguments on their own terms if you want challenge them. Do not, like the creator of this video, create a false conception of what they believe without having an iota of conception of what they have actually written.
freemebgw 1 year ago
Comment removed
Zeldovich 1 year ago
No, they're stupid, and while I'm at it, you're stupid too. You have no idea what you're talking about, you troglodyte, so get lost.
You're sitting here defending beliefs such as there's no cardinal utility, or that Say's Law holds in monetary economics.lol
You have nothing to teach me, you shit-eating, flat-earther waste of flesh.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
@Zeldovich
You are a child.
In what way do I not know what I am talking about? My comments towards this video were specifically referenced and made no value judgment about the beliefs of the creator of this video. I pointed at that the accusations he was making about the Austrian school were wrong (which they are).
Stating they are not stupid is not "defending them";I am attempting to address reality while you're trying to address a fiction. The man who wrote Human Action wasn't ignorant
freemebgw 1 year ago
@Zeldovich
He was extremely well read in the economic literature of his day, as well was Murray Rothbard and many Austrian scholars of today. Mises was a significant intellectual figure during his day. His work, Socialism, completely rocked the economic literature world whenever it was released.
Trying to understand and appreciate the contributions of individuals to ideas and history is rather important. You seek nothing of the sort; you come off merely as a petty propagandist.
freemebgw 1 year ago
@freemebgw
The Austrian approach was purposely unscientific and completely irrelevant to any field of inquiry.
Specifically, with regard to Human Action, it's still accepted by Austrians and presents absurd postulates that ignore more than a century of behavioral research. For example, it is claimed there is no such thing as cardinal utility or indifference.
So, if you differ in opinion, then you're also stupid and completely unworthy of further attention.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
Ludwig von Mises was notorious in pointing out the inequality in knowledge and ability of different people and its importance in the creation of the division of labor (the division of labor arises for mutual benefit between people that have unequal abilities at producing certain goods or services).
The Mises Institute has a highly contentious relationship with economists of the Chicago School variety for their econometric approach to economics.
freemebgw 1 year ago
Murray Rothbard, one of the most prolific expositors “anarcho-capitalism” wrote the above mentioned essay in his “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought”. In it, he discusses the very things that you mentioned in your attack on the “stateless-capitalists”.
A collection of Rothbard’s work pertaining to his opposition to egalitarianism has been published as “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays”.
freemebgw 1 year ago
As someone that has read around the common anarcho-capitalist literature... I don't think you are representing the contentions they make very well. I would say that you are not familiar with the literature at all, actually.
Anarcho-capitalists aren't egalitarians, they don't believe in "perfect competition", they do not associate around the University of Chicago (who has completely different methodologies than Misesians), and they disdain Adam Smith, writing articles like "The Adam Smith Myth"
freemebgw 1 year ago
The bottom line is that most people do not want to live under a Marxist economy. I do not wish to live in your system, whereupon the State can dictate what I am "allowed" to have. I do not believe that I am intrinsically indebted to society by virtue of my birth. I do not wish to live in a system where the collective decides upon my economic fate. Capitalism may not be "perfect" (there is no "perfect" system), but it is far superior to the collectivist models that you seem to prefer.
iqknowles 1 year ago
If you ever worked in a factory, like I did, you'll know that the division of labor is not absolute. Managers cross train workers so that if someone has holiday or is sick then they can be more easily replaced.
Adam Smith did cite the division of labor as a source of growth for an economy. Capitalism, however, is system of savings and accrual of capital. It has no ethics. You claim "this or that" is the opposite of capitalism when..anything goes in capitalism. Be imaginative.. don't hate
geoedwar 1 year ago 3
Wasn't Adam Smith a socialist.
Jasonthegaiface 1 year ago
MaoistRebelNews2 I have mixed feelings about the Israel/Palestine situation, but from your profile I can see that you support Palestine. I would like to know this: Why do communists come out in support of Muslims? THERE IS NO COMMON THEOLOGICAL MEETING GROUND at all. Muslims believe that non-Muslims are hell-bound. Period. Apostasy (which Communism/Marxism would definitely qualify as in a Muslim-majority country) is punishable by death! Is capitalism or Islam a greater enemy?
anoninus 1 year ago
Talking of division of labour, didnt Marx himself exploit it? He would do the mental and intellectual job of laying out a theory, the physically difficult job of actually rising up in revolution would have to be carried out by the proletariat masses. Marx had a bourgeois childhood and married into aristocracy, the classes his followers have grown to hate. i will repeat,communism (with a small c)is a great in theory but its implementation invariably degenerates into Communism (with a capital C)
anoninus 1 year ago
what a douche
cchad004 1 year ago
How can Communists/Marxists/Socialists get on youtube (created by an "evil stock-market-listed corporation" Google) with a clear conscience? Don't you use Internet Explorer (created by an "evil stock-market-listed corporation" Microsoft)? There should be some cognitive dissonance, no? Maybe you use a web browser and computer created by a utopian commune where there is no division of labor...Can you please let me know?
anoninus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anoninus "How can Communists/Marxists/Socialists get on youtube (created by an "evil stock-market-listed corporation" Google) with a clear conscience?" maybe because they use it to gain greater consent for their ideology that when successful would eliminate "the evil stock listed company" "cognitive dissonance, no?" err no. they don't profit from the fortunes of google or microsoft either directly or indirectly so wheres the contradiction?
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@anoninus ""evil stock-market-listed corporation" Google) with a clear conscience?" perhaps beacuse they are using those evil stock based companies to spread there message and build consent for their ideology. "some cognitive dissonance, no?" no there shouldn't be. They don't share in the profits of those companies in anyway so where is the contradiction? there isn't any. It would only be a problem if the Marxist A, did receive part of the profits generated and then B spent it on private use
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed I only see people lining up outside the US/UK/Germany embassy around the world hoping to get in...These countries are more capitalist than communist. Have you seen folks lining up outside Cuban/Vietnamese/Nepalese embassy, hoping to get in? communism (with a small c with no state actors as originally hoped by Marx) invariably degenerates into Communism (with a capital C), one party rule, command economy, politburo politics and ruthless suppresion of dissents. Prove otherwise.
anoninus 1 year ago
@anoninus Please explain what if anything this has to do with your original comment? looks to me like your trying to shift the topic.
CommissarRed 1 year ago 2
@CommissarRed 1st post: Communism does not lead to innovation of any kind. You need a free-wheeling creatively destructive economy for innovation (Google,Microsoft,Intel) that provides a means for earning above-average profits. 2nd post: There isnt one model country that Marxists can point out to that can convince non-believers of its inherent virtue.
anoninus 1 year ago
@anoninus "1st post: Communism does not lead to innovation of any kind." that wasn't what you said at all. your first comment was about an ethical dilemma that only exists in your head, Second of all thats completely false, every system of governance has produce scientific and technological innovations, the Soviet Union were the first to get to space, and Iran and Saudi Arabia published thousands of scientific research papers each year. To say only Capitalism achieves innovation is a lie.
CommissarRed 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommissarRed "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed I cannot understand why a marxist (who ought to believe all religions are opiate of the masses, which actually I agree with and support whole-heartedly) will ever bring up Iran and Saudi Arabia in support of his opinion...they believe that you are going to hell for being a non-believer of their theology, for Marx's sake!!!
anoninus 1 year ago
@anoninus congratulatiions for missing the point entirely. I sadi other systems not systems I agree just other systems. You were claiming that only market capitalism can give innovation which a complete lie, to demonstrate this I gave examples of DIFFERENT systems that still produce Technological and scientific advancement, that is all there is no value judgement at all.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@anoninus Yeah understanding something is difficult when you miss the point huh? Your claim was that Market Capitalism and that alone gives the world innovations, this is quite simply a lie, to show this a mentioned various technological and scientific achievements by other systems. Thats all I was not making a value judgement they just prove your claim to be false.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed I was expecting you would bring up Soviet space program...do you know that the Soviets imprisoned the father of their space program, Sergey Korolyov, and only referred to him as the "Chief Designer", and wouldnt reveal his identity until after his death? Since YOU brought Soviet Union up, what do you have to say about Stalin's ruthless massacres of fellow communists with whom he disagreed? Nikita Kruschev, card carrying Communist himself, admitted to the atrocities in 1956!!!
anoninus 1 year ago
@anoninus "Chief Designer" So it was still a technological innovation. "Stalin's ruthless massacres of fellow communists with whom he disagreed" nothing here it has absolutely nothing at all to do with any of your previous comments and is a transparent attempt to shift the topic. A pattern of yours.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed Communist ideas thrive mostly in free-wheeling capitalistic democratic countries which allow for freedom of speech, thankfully...Communism comes a cropper against radical Islam. Case in point...Indonesia, which people know today as the most populous Islamic country...Not many would know that at one point in time Communism held sway here...Communism does not have any answer to radical Islam which is the #1 problem facing the world today.
anoninus 1 year ago
@anoninus your talking complete nonsense here, though thats nothing new and surprise surprise it has nothing to do with what Either of us are actually talking about. Heres a tip when arguing with someone you have to refute there points and counterpoints, simply shifting the discussion to something that is only tangentially related is called moving the gaol posts and doesn't actually work.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed Please name ONE world-beating company that is head-quartered in a non-free-market, non-capitalist country. Plz refrain from naming any Chinese/Russian company because Russia and China are not Communist/Marxist countries in the true sense. China follows state-capitalism.
anoninus 1 year ago
@anoninus You are of course joking now. Not only does this have nothing to do with any of your previous posts, it is this yet another attempt to move the goal posts further. Not only but it is a complete and total rigging of the situation. You ask for non free market companies but then also disqualify Russia and China for practising "state capitalism". First if its not free market capitalism then I can use a Chinese example can't I since it ain't a free market economy.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
CommissarRed 1 year ago 2
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anoninus "2nd post:" oh so it doesn't have anything to do with your original comment, you were in fact trying to change the topic rather then respond to my rebuttal of your absurd ethical imposition. Thanks for answering though a simple no it doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said would of sufficed.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@anoninus, yep its called open source software you dimwit. Its free and its built by the community. Plus Youtube is build on voluntary labour. The vast, vast majority of content is made for free. Its an example of how communist entertainment might be produced.
jacobvardy 1 year ago
Anyway, my original post (somewhere back there), proves your ignorance. You barely know your enemies beliefs, let alone who they are.
What do you know about my incentives? I've been a socialist. I've seen it's flaws. My values for politics are the same: prosperity and freedom for all. Everything I wanted from socialism, freed markets will provide.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@breakingthe4thwall "freed markets will provide." I've asked this question a number of times and have not received an answer but perhaps you can enlighten me. In a completely free market what stops one very successful group of businessmen from achieving a monopoly and then imposing unfair "policies" on the rest of us as consumers? also on a related note during the transition period whats to stop an already large corporate entity from just assuming the role left by the state?
CommissarRed 1 year ago
Your shallow emotionalist propaganda falls short to reality. None of your criticism is even barely based off anything else.
You hate hiearchy, and yet you want a government class. You want to help the poor, and yet you think government magic will create abundance, and ignore incentives and waste. You want freedom, and yet you hate owning your own means of labor. And for the libertarian socialists, you hate government, and yet you ally with statists. Dictatorships fallout, not whither away.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
Simply compare the worse any business has done to the worse any government has done, believe me, the government will win every time.
Voluntary/Free: Up to ones own free will.
Force: Against ones own free will.
A socialists idea of freedom: Everyone owes me everything.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@breakingthe4thwall "Everyone owes me everything" is your distorted view of socialism.
You can champion "individual responsiblity" all you want, but in the end, capitalism simply means: "Fuck you, you're on you're own, and I don't care if you starve."
TheCanadianLeninist 1 year ago
@TheCanadianLeninist
You don't see any hypocrisy there? That's your distorted view of capitalism. You must be really blind to see the benefits that voluntary trade can have. You don't need government to make sure everyone is fed. Human beings are too social and interdependent, most selfish actions can be beneficial. Besides, what is charity and altruism if it is not voluntary? Free markets are not anti poor.
I don't have a problem with some socialists, if you read any of my other comments.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@breakingthe4thwall That's not a distorted view, that's the truth. Capitalism is completely based on selfishness and greed, capitalists themselves have admitted this. The system is not meant to help the poor, it is not meant to keep everyone fed, it is meant to keep power and wealth within a few select individuals who exploit the masses.
The only reason anarcho-capitalists say the current system isn't capitalism is because it doesn't work the way they want it to.
TheCanadianLeninist 1 year ago
You are correct - Smith has been misquoted badly.
Apparently he believed in a wacko "HIDDEN HAND" that would right all wrongs in the economy, but since it doesn't actually exist, his system failed and you see the Exploitation of Out-of-Control Capitalism :-P
Klingschor 1 year ago
''Adam Smith one of the heros of the stateless capitalist movement''. Hardly, while he is a mascott for the Adam Smith Institute Croud & other more conservative supporters of markets, the originator of 'stateless' capitalism Murray Rothbard hated Smith.
Malthus0 1 year ago
The Wealth of Nations is an insanely tedious tome.
MensRifleAssociation 1 year ago
I heard from a friend that he also said that the invisible hand is "god". Well, that's that. :)
tiecuando 1 year ago
@tiecuando Adam Smith used the term invisible hand only 3 times total in his entire career. 1st on the subject of astronomy. 2nd in the theroy of Moral Seniments, & 3rd in The Wealth of Nations. If your friend is right (and I am not saying that he is) then it seems likey that he is probably refering to morality or the movements in the heavans rather then the workings of the market.
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 That being the case, it definitely doesn't justify being used by nihilists. :)
tiecuando 1 year ago
@tiecuando I do not no what you are talking about, I must have missed some assumed knowledge on my part. What does Smith, nihilism & god have to do with each other?
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 Dude, where have you been? A certain segment of the "anarcho" capitalists here on youtube (and stickam) have resorted to moral nihilism. Then after that they tell you why their moral are best.
tiecuando 1 year ago
@tiecuando Oh yes I only know of fringelements/confedsocialist taking that position.
Not that I listen to him any more since he destroyed a perfectly good channel.
Malthus0 1 year ago
intresting.
NubianTribesman 1 year ago
Noam Chomsky had a really good video on YouTube which goes into great detail regarding how Adam Smith has been misused; unfortunately like so much writing in the area people ignore the philosophy behind it. Reminds me of people who read Milton Friedman but ignore that the fact that at no time does he ever disparage the idea of non-profit organisations or businesses that are owned by the employees.
kawaiigardiner 1 year ago
"If Smith was not the creator of economic theory, neither was he the founder of laissez-faire in political economy. Not only were the scholastics analysts of, and believers in, the free market and critics of government intervention; but the French & Italian economists of the eighteenth century were even more laissez-faire-oriented than Smith.... It turns out that, rather than someone who should be venerated as creator of modern economics or of laissezfaire....a necessary precursor of Karl Marx."
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
Here's the article, go to the mises site (mises . o r g), search:
"The Adam Smith Myth" by Murray Rothbard.
" Murray Rothbard argues that Adam Smith’s should not be called the founder of economics, nor a theorist who improved on economic science, nor even a consistent defender of the market economy."
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
Lawl, Austrians and anarchocapitalists do not idolize Adam Smith, and many have pointed out his flaws (like Murray Rothbard). They like him, but he has flaws, and he's not totally free market.
There are more then a few articles criticizing him, they aren't hiding anything.
-A free market anarchist
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@breakingthe4thwall Just asking, but do you believe a hierarchal capitalist market can ever be truly "free"?
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 It's a question of ethics. If it's voluntary, the minor hierarchy in a market is naturally formed mostly by division of labor and skill. A truly free market will look different then a corporatist market like the one we have.
Plus, free market anarchists are totally chill with any other anarchists setting up whatever system they like, as long as it is voluntary. We can have separate stateless societies, separate law systems, and see what works best for humanity.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@breakingthe4thwall Under a capitalist system, I must work in a hierarchal environment and submit to a boss, or else I starve. There is no "voluntary" in capitalism.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123
Nope. I mean if you believe that, go ahead, go live in a socialistic society. I choose to work for a certain boss for a certain pay. That's my decision. If I don't like it, I can work for someone else, or I can live on my own. I could even live in the woods.
Plus, not everyone even has a boss. Think about entrepreneurs. Real Estate agents do not have bosses. They have Brokers, but they do not tell them how to run business, they simply manage the office they work in.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 A boss does not hunt me down to look for me to force me to work. He does not take away my free will. When he does, and keeps me from leaving work, I am a slave. But he does not. I desire the money, and he desires my labor. People look for work, the work does not find them.
State socialism does not give me a choice. It's either the collective or some leader. Neither does corporatism, slaves to oligarchy. Socialist Anarchism does. Free Market Anarchism does.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@breakingthe4thwall I'll say it again: the reality for most people in the world is that they HAVE to work for a boss in a hierarchal, authoritarian workplace under capitalism. You HAVE TO or else you starve and go homeless. Even if you can quit your job and become your own boss it still doesn't justify any oppression on any end of the social ladder. People "look for work" because they have to due to the coercion of living without basic needs.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123
Working is just reality. So are hierarchies. Your ignoring this fact. There will always be people with a higher position everywhere. There are hierarchies in state socialism, and they are much worse then ones in capitalism. At least in a free market, we choose how we want to work. Governments always have worse incentives then the free market, because they do not work with their own money. If a business does not satisfy, it starves. Governments do not.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
Your fallaciously conflating institutional corporatism with the free market. It's not the same thing.
What I really don't understand why libertarian socialists, and anarchosocialists are so friendly with marxists, and yet oh no, libertarian and free market anarchists who share the same goal, a goal where NEITHER GROUP HAS TO COMPROMISE, are totally off limits.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@breakingthe4thwall "Your fallaciously conflating institutional corporatism with the free market. It's not the same thing." but how would you stop one from becoming the other? "NEITHER GROUP HAS TO COMPROMISE, are totally off limits." because there not the same at all, have you ever read a single Anarchist text? all you free marketeers do is replace one master for another, when Proudhon stated all property is theft he meant all property that can be used to dominate and exploit others.
CommissarRed 1 year ago 2
@CommissarRed My point exactly.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
Where does Smith say that government intervention is sometimes necessary to hold back division of labor?
epsilon8998 1 year ago
Thus whilst they deserve some time, proportionately surely a lot more time is required for those who blithely support really existing capitalism (i.e. state capitalism), and, whilst not supporting the status quo in all its details, unconsciously support its fundamental tenets. Polls in The United States (where I know you are not, but where the core of the problem may be) show that political thinking is reformist rather than radical, with little to no anarchist or left communist elements. Thx4wk.
VaSavoir2007 1 year ago
@MaoistRebelNews2: What would be the best copy available for Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations?
okayillgonow 1 year ago
Everything you state here is accurate, apart from one claim possibly, though you could give the well-known quotes from Smith that support each position you present. In the world we live in, Smith is probably far more misrepresented than Marx. However, why do you address yourself to stateless capitalists/"libertarians"/"anarcho-capitalists" when they constitute (despite YouTube's distorting lens) a tiny minority. Most people, unfortunately, still believe in capitalism (read state capitalism).
VaSavoir2007 1 year ago
@VaSavoir2007 becuase they need to see this
MaoistRebelNews2 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaoistRebelNews2 Clearly they already knew this.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago
@VaSavoir2007
There's nothing wrong with capitalism. It's been the known as the fastest and perhaps only sustainable system for economic growth. Pure capitalism doesn't work, but most of the decisions made in any economy should be made by more or less free markets.
The best thing for all is to have primarily capitalist driven growth, but have government guarantee that the basic needs of all are met.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
Go fucking figure. I swear to god, most of these free-market capitalists champion Smith when they didn't even read Smith; they read some interpretation of Smith by some bourgeois professor at Columbia University. Same thing with these people bashing on Marx; most of them didn't even read Marx, just what his critics said about him. No wonder our society is fucked.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 darwin is the most under-read and over-maligned writer evar
RadicalSyndicate 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123
Yeah, he favored welfare. Milton Friedman did too, in the form of a negative income tax. Conservatives today are to the right of Milton Friedman in some ways. lol
Zeldovich 1 year ago