You must log in or register to comment.
As if Marx’s work doesn’t build from the work of previous economists INCLUDING Smith! Pure idealist nonsense but what else do you expect from liberals.
As a Marxist, I look at Adam Smith as an economist who was examining the necessary advancement of political economy. The wealth of nations is a book that mostly observes the emergence of a new economic system. We all believe in historical materialism, Adam Smith fits right in for us because he advocated for a newer and more efficient economic system which was an improvement over the mercantilism of the day.
He also correctly identified the contradictions and drawbacks of Capitalism just as it was getting started. I never read his other book but it’s the opposite of “men only act in their self interest” or so I’ve heard.
“half of reddit”
fuck i wish
Everyone who loves smith at the expense of Marx has never read either.
You can tell none of them have ever read The Wealth of Nations, because they would’ve labelled Smith a dirty commie for some of his takes.
Adam Smith was a proto-Maoist in the landlord question :mao-shining:
Okay then I will go read the wealth of nations
But the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind
Am I supposed to be supporting capitalism yet?
Do they forget that Das Capital is just a response to Wealth of Nations using it’s discoveries about the operations of capital and imperialism to form a contrast with Marx and Engels findings about the operations of labor and the colonized? I really don’t think any of these morons have read, or even skimmed either book.
Wealth of Nations actually dovetails nicely into Marx
It’s almost as if Marx read the book and wrote Capital as a constructive response that fleshed out the position of labor in the context of Smith’s capitalism. That the books are two sides of the same coin, and Smith doesn’t even directly endorse capitalism as a good way to run society.
