Adam Smith - father of capitalism and my worst ENEMY

[Freiheit]

in the moment i read a book about capitalism (opposing viewpoints). in this book, the first part is about smith, i read it and thought: oh my god how can some people believe this nonsense.

here are smiths hypothesis, i really cant understand:

adam smith: every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way.

1) SELF-INTEREST BENEFITS SOCIETY:
it is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. but the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society. (Every individual trys to find the most advantageous employment for his capital).

2) THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS A VALUE:
secondly, every individual who employs his capital in the support of domestic industry, necessarily endeavours so to direct that industry, that its produce may be of the greatest possible value.

3) GOVERNMENT RETARDS PROGRESS:
What is the species of domestic industry whic hhis capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can in his local situation, judge much better than any states or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume on authority which couldsafely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, ...


the industrialization showed us, that he was wrong and that his hypothesis is shit.
bBut despite of this fact, sometimes i have problems in debates to attack the defenders of this crap.
does anyone have any argument against this crap to show all the capitalists that smith is a waste.

My arguments:

1) he only thinks about himself, he doesnt care what happens with the others. he has no consideration about others and will also try to damage them to earn more.

2) the provite motive is so big that he also will try to damage others to get the monopoly.

3) government protects the right of the poor, that increase their morality, they will work harder, because they get a life.
the government damage the capitalist a little bit, but support everyone else.

in general:
in a system, based on egoism, will never be any justice, because their is no solidarity etc. it isnt possible that something bad (egoism/self-interest etc.) results in something good (value/everyone gets rich etc.)

Please help me to collect more arguments!

[vox]

One thing you could tell them is to read Smith for themselves, for Smith would be quite outraged at the way capitalists have perverted his work.

While it's true that he wrote approvingly of the division of labor, he also said that it would turn men into dumb beasts, and realized that in any civilized society the government would have to take steps to prevent this from happening.

Here's a good Smith quote: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.'' Sounds like a lefty, to me.

I got that from this website: http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/corprule/betrayal.htm

It's about the betrayal of Adam Smith by the capitalists, and I think you'd find it quite interesting.

Chomsky, too, has written a bit about Smith, in Class Warfare and, I believe, in Year 501.

We always have to remember that Smith was a product of the Enlightenment and believed that man was sympathetic and cooperative by nature. Using Smith to justify today's capitalist practices is almost like using Ghandi to justify war.

vox

[vox]

Happily enough, I was just on another board and I found this:

Published on Monday, January 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Adam Smith vs. George Bush on Taxes
by Sam Fleischacker

"It's your money" has been a rallying cry of many political leaders, including President Bush, to justify large tax cuts. Taxes, say Bush and many libertarians, should always be regarded with suspicion--they take people's hard-earned private property away--and should be kept as low as possible.
Although people who hold views like this often appeal to Adam Smith as a patron saint of private property and the free market, Smith himself did not share their view of taxation. It is instructive to see why.
The alternative to the "it's your money" view begins by pointing out that the money I pay in taxes is not really just "my" money. When I take a job or start a business, I will make money only if I get significant help from my society and my government. My efforts will fail if I am not protected against theft and attack, if there are no decent roads to and from my firm, if environmental blight or urban decay keeps people away from my retail outlet or if the general population is so poorly educated, ill or despairing that my firm can find no customers or good workers. In this sense, my earnings are not purely "my" money. They are the product, rather, of a collaborative effort between me and my neighbors and political officials. And I owe some of the earnings back to the society and government agencies that have helped me.

It is this view, not Bush's view, that Smith endorsed. He wrote, in his "Wealth of Nations": "The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the state." Society creates the conditions under which financial success is possible, Smith believed, and has therefore a rightful claim to a share of that success.

Smith thought, more generally, that it was foolish to talk as if there were something suspicious about the fact that governments tax us. Taxation comes with government. All governments must impose taxes on their subjects, and since governments perform important services for all of us, we should be just as willing to pay taxes as we are to pay for any other service. In fact, Smith says, people are willing, even proud, to pay taxes: "Every tax is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty. It denotes that he is subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master." Governments expand everyone's liberty, and the fact that we pay taxes to support the government is but a sign and a consequence of our freedom.

Finally, one part of protecting liberty involves making sure that there is as little poverty as possible. Great poverty breeds crime, which interferes with everyone's liberty and of course prevents the poor themselves from having the mental or material resources to act with full freedom. Protecting freedom directly requires an investment at least in public education and public health, especially for pregnant mothers and young children. Smith supported using tax money for these kinds of measures. Indeed, he gives express approval to progressive taxation, recommending a higher road toll for luxury carriages than for freight vehicles so that "the indolence and vanity of the rich" can be made to contribute to "the relief of the poor."

Adam Smith has been misread for generations, and it is not news to scholars that he was a strong advocate for the poor. But it is disturbing that the silly notion that taxes are some sort of infringement on private property should be widespread two centuries after Smith died. It is yet more disturbing that a person who is now president should have based his campaign on this silly notion.

Sam Fleischacker, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois in Chicago, is author of "A Third Concept of Liberty: Judgment and Freedom in Kant and Adam Smith" (Princeton University Press, 1999)


vox

[Freiheit]

Quote: from vox on 2:14 pm on Nov. 19, 2001
One thing you could tell them is to read Smith for themselves, for Smith would be quite outraged at the way capitalists have perverted his work.

While it's true that he wrote approvingly of the division of labor, he also said that it would turn men into dumb beasts, and realized that in any civilized society the government would have to take steps to prevent this from happening.

Here's a good Smith quote: "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.'' Sounds like a lefty, to me.

I got that from this website: http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/corprule/betrayal.htm

It's about the betrayal of Adam Smith by the capitalists, and I think you'd find it quite interesting.

Chomsky, too, has written a bit about Smith, in Class Warfare and, I believe, in Year 501.

We always have to remember that Smith was a product of the Enlightenment and believed that man was sympathetic and cooperative by nature. Using Smith to justify today's capitalist practices is almost like using Ghandi to justify war.

vox


you cant say that smith was a leftist, this man founded capitalism, of course he believed in the humans good sense and in just world. but his way to go to this aim is the oposits of a leftist.

[vox]

I didn't mean to imply that Smith was a leftist, only that the quote sounded like something a person on the liberal-left might say.

It should be remembered that Smith lived before the rise of industrial capitalism, and there is really nothing in his writing that would make anyone think he'd support sweatshops, the way the neoliberals do.

Smith wasn't Marx, that's for sure, but he's also not Friedman, and people who use Smith to defend neoliberal principles show only that they do not know what Smith had to say.

vox

[Freiheit]

vox, do you mean:
smith thought his system will be fair and it will work, and that is the raeson why he is ok?

probably he believed it, but also george bush believes that his system is fair and it will work.

on the other hand smith is the father of capitalism, he caused an avalanche.
and i dont believe that the main interest, when he wrote his hypothesis, was to help the poor.
His system was created in the absolutism, ok he came from england, but above all he wanted to leave the aristocracy. that is a good thing.

[vox]

I'm not saying that Smith is okay. I'm saying that Smith isn't the guy the right makes him out to be. He sounds like a liberal Democrat, in today's terms.

the right does itself no service when they misrepresent Smith, and leave themselves wide open to attack on the subject. The Left should not make the same mistake.

If you really want to know about Smith, read The Wealth of Nations.

vox

[Jurhael]

Eehhh...aren't you talking about American Capitalism because I could have sworn that Capitalism was like 400 years old or something...

[Freiheit]

smtih published the wealth of nations in 1776, in year of the american revolution, but youre right, in the united states was never a aristocracy and a kind of capitalism existed even before the revolution.

[vox]

Jurhael,

I said industrial capitalism. Smith warned against the very kind of division of labor that industrialization made possible.

vox

[Freiheit]

Quote: from vox on 1:36 pm on Nov. 20, 2001
I'm not saying that Smith is okay. I'm saying that Smith isn't the guy the right makes him out to be. He sounds like a liberal Democrat, in today's terms.

the right does itself no service when they misrepresent Smith, and leave themselves wide open to attack on the subject. The Left should not make the same mistake.

If you really want to know about Smith, read The Wealth of Nations.

vox


it is probably a good idea to read the wealth of nations, and i will do it somewhen, but i am 17 i cant have read everything. I read the 'most important' hypothesises of smith. and, for me, i know enough to discuss about him.

[vox]

Freiheit,

We don't really know each other, but, from what I've read, you've a good head on your shoulders. All I'm saying is don't trust the right-wing about Smith, just like you, presumably, wouldn't trust them about socialism.

Before you go off about Smith, just make sure you can defend what you say with Smith's own words. Otherwise, you'll get kicked.

vox

[Freiheit]

Thank you very much.

it is a very good point.