How come fewer people today talk about Adam Smith than Kari Marx?

[Anonymous]

How come fewer people today talk about Adam Smith than Kari Marx?

Seriously Kari Marx was a loser who mooched off the wealth of others and wrote one of the most disastrous economic philosophies in history.

Adam Smith the writer of the "wealth of nations" is one of the most influence and important economic philosopher in the western word.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith is to capitalism what Kari Marx was to communism.

The countries that followed Adam Smith became the most successful and wealthiest in history. The countries that followed Kari Marx became totalitarian and economic basket cases.

So why do we talk about the loser and hardly mention one of the most successful economic philosopher in human history Adam Smith?

[goaded]

“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.”
― Adam Smith

Maybe you should also consider whether the incoming administration cares one whit about any of these things:

“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.”

“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable. ”

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

“Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.”

[goaded]

Here's a beaut: “The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public”

[goaded]

“The prudent man always studies seriously and earnestly to understand whatever he professes to understand, and not merely to persuade other people that he understands it; and though his talents may not always be very brilliant, they are always perfectly genuine”

[Asker]

You should take the time to read the whole wealth of Nations.

For something published in 1776 this was a very impressive work. Regardless of your 'values' those that followed the teachings in the wealth of nation by Adam smith did far more for the poor than those that followed The communist manifesto by Kari Marx.

[goaded]

I should read Das Kapital as well, but have you seen how thick it is?

They both agreed that the people should have control of the government, and that capitalists are opposed to that and will try to get everything they can.

[Asker]

@goaded
He is talking about an economy and the nature of economics, Not a simple concept, but nonetheless made the case the followers of which became the most successful nations in the world. That is worth a read,

Unlike Das Kapital which only created misery

[goaded]

Those "followers" only care about the part that makes them rich and ignore the advice about not keeping the people poor and miserable.

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable. ”

"The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions."

Wealth inequality in the United States today is higher than in pre-revolution France. The people need to have a way to change that and the choice is between democratic government and more CEOs being shot in the back.

[RavVid]

Yes Marx scammed Engels for money all the time.

Where Marx wins is he hits victim mentality especially well and any victim class can immediately use the Marxist framework. Basically you just swap out the proletariat with other victims.

If you are Hitler you swap in German people, if you are Mao swap in Chinese peasants, if you are a feminist slot in women, if you are weird invent a lot of genders and slot them in. If you are Stalin you just have to keep the proletariat. Easy peasy.

We still have to work on a way of slotting white males in somehow. Difficult because they occupy the oppressing class position usually.

[lightbulb27]

Good question. Not sure. People love drama?

What I noticed is they both have short names, and there's a lot in a name.

What if they were named:

Herbert Zinkeldorfmeister and

Zeliphinius Poolombargernumbersnickles

Think anyone pay attention to either? I think not... that's why Madonna changed her name to... we'll... Madonna! Keep it short and simple.

Since we are so rich, I propose we spend 2 billion dollars researching what the frip is going on...

[Astarlessnightsky]

Because capitalism doesn't work. It keeps people poor and working their ass off for somebody else.

And Marx is talked about because the capitalists are brainwashing the people in an effort making capitalism seem somewhat good.

[NathanDavis]

people too busy working two or three jobs to endure capitalism, that's why...

[Asker]

People work 2 jobs because the goverment won't allow them to live in houses they build themselfs or built using materials and standards that can be afforded.

[goaded]

@monorprise Happy New Year! Do you buy or rent the land you build your house on? If it falls onto a bystander when the wind picks up, is that a problem?

[Asker]

@goaded I own, and don't know what you mean by bystander. it is a house

[goaded]

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't just choose a patch of land and build a house on it, and that the regulations are to ensure than the house is safe for you and others.

[Asker]

@goaded The only reason you can't choose a plot of land and build a house on it is because of those same goverment regulations which you CLAIM are to insure it is safe for you and others.

But the same goverment even if it knew what it was talking about decades ago when they created such rules does not know today. They have no idea how to protect people from themselfs and even less practical accountability to do so.

[goaded]

Actually it's ownership rights. You believe in them, don't you? Someone owns that plot of land. Do you think they should only have a right to it if they shoot people who try to use it without permission?

[Asker]

@goaded You can choose a plot of land that doesn't mean you don't have to trade for from the people who currently own it.

Once you do own it thou yes you do indeed have to protect it.

[goaded]

How barbaric.

[NathanDavis]

I didn't build my place myself... but I did renovate/rebuilt on my terms

wasn't that much cheaper, but I'm sure it didn't get more expensive

[DrPepper12]

In general Marx is a great foil for ignorant people who watch Fox News but I assure you Adam gets his pride of place 2x in NYS curriculum - history & economics.

Smith the greatest? Debatable. Greatest marketing & luck? Yup! 🤔

[exitseven]

Same reason Al Capone got all the press and nobody ever heard of Eliot Ness.

[OddBeMe]

I would argue marx is only brought up by right wingers to blame lefties for everything

[goaded]

Smith made some very good points that don't much differ from Marx's.

[goaded]

“This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
― Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

[goaded]

I don't think he explained why a "distinction of ranks and the order of society" was necessary. ICBW.

[OddBeMe]

@goaded what a commie