Thoughts on Adam Smith and Wealth of Nations

[NGNM85]

If you adhere to Adam Smith ideologically (I.e. His Liberalism and Moralism) you're not a socialist. It ends with his political economy.

I never claimed to do either. I'm not a Liberal, and, as I understand the term, I'm not a 'Moralist' either. For the third time, and please, I urge you to read ...very....very....slowly;

The ideas that are most often attributed to Adam Smith by the Right are very different, and, often, diametrically opposed, to his actual ideas.

You'll note that, at no point, did I ever express solidarity with Adam Smith, or endorse any of his ideas, about anything. You can argue with what I did say, although it's a matter of empirical fact, and an especially banal one, at that, but you can't contest statements that I did not make.

NGNM85, you piece of shit,

That's about the level of intelligence I've come to expect from you. Also; I'm sorry your mom won't let you borrow the minivan, kiddo, but it isn't my fault.

who am I to say so?

Yes; who the fuck appointed you the official spokesman of the Radical Left? I'm unaware of a single person who has nominated you for this awesome responsibility.

I am, unlike you, a Radical. That's why.

I'm absolutely a Radical. I'm the definition of a Radical. I'm even more 'Revolutionary' than Karl Marx, the mature Marx, anyways. "Radical' comes from the Latin; 'radix', for; 'root.' Being a Radical means seeking not just superficial changes, but fundamental changes, changing the underlying order of society. This is the difference between Radicals, and Liberals; they think the best thing there is is some modified, humanized capitalism. I believe we can do better than that. I believe we have to do better than that.

Being a Radical does not give you the right to, unilaterally, decide what ideas others are allowed to express.

[~Spectre]

I never claimed to do either. I'm not a Liberal, and, as I understand the term, I'm not a 'Moralist' either. For the third time, and please, I urge you to read ...very....very....slowly;

The ideas that are most often attributed to Adam Smith by the Right are very different, and, often, diametrically opposed, to his actual ideas.

You'll note that, at no point, did I ever express solidarity with Adam Smith, or endorse any of his ideas, about anything. You can argue with what I did say, although it's a matter of empirical fact, and an especially banal one, at that, but you can't contest statements that I did not make.



That's about the level of intelligence I've come to expect from you. Also; I'm sorry your mom won't let you borrow the minivan, kiddo, but it isn't my fault.



Yes; who the fuck appointed you the official spokesman of the Radical Left? I'm unaware of a single person who has nominated you for this awesome responsibility.



I'm absolutely a Radical. I'm the definition of a Radical. I'm even more 'Revolutionary' than Karl Marx, the mature Marx, anyways. "Radical' comes from the Latin; 'radix', for; 'root.' Being a Radical means seeking not just superficial changes, but fundamental changes, changing the underlying order of society. This is the difference between Radicals, and Liberals; they think the best thing there is is some modified, humanized capitalism. I believe we can do better than that. I believe we have to do better than that.

Being a Radical does not give you the right to, unilaterally, decide what ideas others are allowed to express.

You're not a radical. Just saying. You're a reactionary if I recall. Last time you popped up, I believe you were in the midst of defending pro-life positions and Sam Harris.

[eric922]

You're not a radical. Just saying. You're a reactionary if I recall. Last time you popped up, I believe you were in the midst of defending pro-life positions and Sam Harris.

If what you say is correct, at worst those positions would make him a conservative, not a reactionary since a reactionary is one who holds far-right views and seeks a return to an idealized past. Seriously, people here throw that word around all the time and it seems like none of them knows what it means. They do the same thing with liberal and idealist. It makes talking to some people pointless.

[~Spectre]

If what you say is correct, at worst those positions would make him a conservative, not a reactionary since a reactionary is one who holds far-right views and seeks a return to an idealized past.

Pro-life is reactionary. The abortion question has been settled for decades now.

[Rafiq]

I never claimed to do either. I'm not a Liberal, and, as I understand the term, I'm not a 'Moralist' either. For the third time, and please, I urge you to read ...very....very....slowly;

You say these things, but only formally. You are a Liberal and a moralist unconcoiusly, and that's ideology at it's purest. Meaning, although formally you don't like to identify as a Liberal (ego), every ideological assertion you've deployed pressuposes liberalism and moralism.

I'll name an example: Why are you a socialist? It's quite simple, your socialism amounts to nothing more than universal ethical absolutist convictions. "Authority", and "Infringies on Liberty", to you, are the ultimate enemies of your virtue. Therefore you are a socialist. Meaning your opposition to capitalism amounts to nothing more than a simple ethical opposition, i.e. Your opposition to capitalism pressupposes Liberalist morality. This is contrary to Anarchism, which is ethically absolutist in the sense that it opposes Authority, Hierarchy, and the concept of the State indefinitely and unquestionably. Of course, even this would be in a way conflicting with classical liberalism. But no, to you, you have your Liberty, and objective "Human rights".

The ideas that are most often attributed to Adam Smith by the Right are very different, and, often, diametrically opposed, to his actual ideas.

Not really, no. Adam Smith is praised by Leftists (Marxists, only usually) because of his theoretically strict works based in mathematics and in science, not his ideological rhetoric which was common in most Liberals at the time. For you to go back and adhere to this is not only conservative, it is reactionary.

That's right. Liberalism of today is superior to Liberalism of then. To go back to "old" liberalism makes you a reactionary even by Bourgeois standards.

You'll note that, at no point, did I ever express solidarity with Adam Smith, or endorse any of his ideas, about anything.

I don't care if you didn't formally express "Solidarity" () with Adam Smith, ideologically you seem to pressupose several concepts that he also adhered to.

You can argue with what I did say, although it's a matter of empirical fact, and an especially banal one, at that, but you can't contest statements that I did not make.

I can jump to the conclusion that a person who sais that Zionists control the world is an Anti Semite, even if he did not openly admit that he thinks the Jews do or that he opposes Jewish people.

What say you to this? I don't care what you identify as in Ego, I care about what you are unconscionably and ideologically, and sorry to say, it bleeds through your posts. Chomsky too. You see his opposition to the war not because it isn't in the interest of the proletarian class, and that iti s a victory to the Bourgeoisie, but because it is "IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL!!!111".

That's about the level of intelligence I've come to expect from you. Also; I'm sorry your mom won't let you borrow the minivan, kiddo, but it isn't my fault.

What is this supposed to mean? Do you call this an insult? Did you really just type that up and laugh, did you even think that was worthy of being called an insult?

Also, I do like how you isolated that from the rest of the segment, as if it exists divorced from such. Really, NGNM, pathetic. Are you so sensitive that you can't handle a simple insult, of which you are deserving of, you insufferable waste of human existence?

Yes; who the fuck appointed you the official spokesman of the Radical Left? I'm unaware of a single person who has nominated you for this awesome responsibility.

Indeed I don't represent the radical left in every way. But there are characteristics that me and every other radical leftist user have on this site that you... Sorry to say, don't. It's because you're a Liberal and I'm a Radical. And in this regard, I am indeed qualified to speak for them.

I'm absolutely a Radical. I'm the definition of a Radical. I'm even more 'Revolutionary' than Karl Marx, the mature Marx, anyways.

Again, I don't care what you say, what you type in other threads exist in contradiction with this little declaration of yours.

And again, this nonsense you're always on about: How you're more "radical" than Karl Marx. Well you're not, you see: Karl Marx scientifically grapsed the root of capitalism's contradictions objectively and strictly, without Moral bullshit. For your opposition to "capitalism' (see, you liberal scum, you don't even recognize the capitalist mode of production and consider what we live in to be "corporate mercantilism" or whatever the fuck term you and Chomsky use) is completely ethical therefore half assed, therefore not Radical (Not sufficient enough to sustain a real opposition to capitalism).

But we can't even leave it at there. You're not even an Anti Capitalist, i.e. In your own words, you don't oppose capitalism, you oppose "corporate mercantilism" and simply consider capitalism a Utopia instead of a real process which exists in all of our lives.

Tell me, how do you consider yourself a Radical?

"Radical' comes from the Latin; 'radix', for; 'root.' Being a Radical means seeking not just superficial changes, but fundamental changes, changing the underlying order of society.

Which you simply cannot provide, i.e. You want the capitalist mode of production without it's inbreds, you want Worker-Coop dominated society, probably something along the lines of Market Socialism or Autonomous communes (syndicates, if you will) ruling society, which doesn't even make a small dent in the capitalist mode of production and it's contradictions. It may have partially addressed class contradiction, but the fact that it doesn't address the rest (Commodity production, Market contradictions, etc.) means that class contradiction is once again inevitable.

So, you're not a Radical.

This is the difference between Radicals, and Liberals; they think the best thing there is is some modified, humanized capitalism. I believe we can do better than that. I believe we have to do better than that.

Sorry to say, this is a bunch of formal garbage. Liberals pressupose Liberalist morality, i.e. Liberty as absolute and almost objective, of great necessity, etc. Any idiot can propose a new society. It takes a Radical to do so without those pressuposions, to not even propose a new society but fight for the class interest of the only revolutionary class.

Being a Radical does not give you the right to, unilaterally, decide what ideas others are allowed to express.

No, but it allows us as radicals to judge who and who isn't one. You can say whatever you like, but it doesn't "unilaterally" allow you to identify yourself as a radical without people like me calling you out for it. You're not a Radical, You're a Liberalist, and even my biggest opponents on this forum probably recognize that. It is, actually, NGNM, why you're restricted. Tell me again why you oppose abortion? Becuase it's Immoral? Because it infringes on the Liberty of the so called fetus? Hah! Even Liberals today, American Liberals don't oppose abortion. Only Conservative Liberalists do... And oh wait.... Doesn't Chomsky identify as a conservative too?

[Dean]

Rafiq & NGM85: This is really bizarre. Why are you two at each others' throats in such an otherwise mundane thread?

[Blackbird123]

Rafiq & NGM85: This is really bizarre. Why are you two at each others' throats in such an otherwise mundane thread?

The reason why every other argument in this world has to come into fruition and arises......some one has to be right.