If you havent read pic related then stop posting right now. I cant believe how few Americans have read this, yet everyone know about the communist manifesto.
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
Other urls found in this thread:
i got the same nose as him
Division of labor
common sense filler
I think I got the gist.
I think I got the gist.
Sup Forums, ladies and gentlemen. They dont need to read or understand. They get the 'gist' of things and that is 'good enough'
yet everyone know about the communist manifesto.
thank the jews for that one son
also the main gist of adam smith is:
if you sell high, people arent buying your shit, they buying it from somewhere else faggot, wisen up
It was a fucking joke, faggot, but it's unquestionable that he was extremely obsessed with this concept and actually overstated it's importance in economics, making more fundamental than supply and demand.
The invisible han
not a meme
Smithers are just as retarded as Marxists.
Youre oversimplifying it. Dont turn people off to reading this book. Just because ti is simple doesn not make it less important. I didnt learn about this book untill I was an adult, but I had a lesson on the communist manifesto every year in high school. Sup Forums needs to encourage people to read good important books, like this one.
Sorry I triggered you, nigger :(
No need to apologize, as no triggerings occurred.
The premise of your topic is idiotic. The Communist Manifesto's aims was completely different from The Wealth of Nations, and is read primarily for its historical value and not its economic theory, which is quite lacking in it. Adam Smith's classical views on economics are rather obsolete by today's standards, regardless of the economics school you subscribe to, while the Communist Manifesto will always been important for being the most influential communist publication. I'm not saying one is superior to the other, only giving you an obvious answer of why one is more popular, or well-known than the other. Also, if you didn't learn about Adam Smith in Economics, you probably had a shitty teacher or textbook.
the main weapon of Marxists is making simple fundamental principles like in economics and gender as complex as possible with empty language, while characterising other viewpoints as simply as possible using easily but painstakingly debunkable logical fallacies to disarm any actual logical debater from positing their opinion concisely, despite however much evidence backs it up. it's a form of argumentative filibustering, confuse and construe definitions until it's impossible for your opponent to keep the audiences attention.
Also, if communists actually read Marx's later views on transitioning society to communism in his actual treatise on economics, they would learn that he disapproved of the welfare state and entitlements because he thought they delayed the inevitable revolution of the proletariat, (which we're still waiting for). The Communist Party of America was actually opposed to FDR's New Deal. But modern so-called communists disregard this because by calling themselves that, they just want to indicate that they're the edgiest leftists possible, not that they're actually interested in practicing Marxism.
simply put, but most people who have suffered Marxist subversion of their language will come to their own conclusions on what sophistry means as a way for them to ignore cognitive dissidence. My post is a great example of the painstaking effort needed to be put into untangling the Marxist miasma of language instead of simply using a single word. Another example is how people now perceive "racism" and "sexism" now using the power+privilege equation to negate the use of the obvious definition.
We live in dark times friend, which makes speaking truth all the more important.
Adam Smith is the most Jewish non-Jew. Look at that fucking nose.
Capitalism is globalism, try non-Jewish capitalism for the glory of your ethnic population/nation, much cleaner.
It's a reply to frenchtards mercantilism.
That is a tough fucking read, broseph. Particularly the digressions. Eye wateringly dry dry dry.
I am reading right now but I don't blame other people for not doing it.
Adam Smith is a shity writer who's hard to give a shit about. He elaborates on end with run on sentences about things that require no explaination, enflating the thicknes of his text and obscuring the message therein. He's also very very boring! I have half a mind to write an abridged version later.
You idiot. Read Adam Smith and you'll find that he WAS THE FOUNDER OF NON-JEW CAPITALISM! He was against capitalism purely for the sake of money and proposed a sort of moral economy where the goal of an entrepreneur is to fulfill the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of their clients rather than just jew them into poverty. Read a fucking book, nigger!
I sit corrected.
Actually just about to start reading it after I read a few others.
Always wanted to read it.
It's nit American eother, he's a Scottish man.
Apparently though it is flawed.
Why try neing equal, we are not on the_donald.
As dry as leviathan
I would also recommend Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions: The Ideological Origins of Political Struggles".
Great book explaining why two different people often disagree on a very wide number of diverse and unrelated issues. The whole premise of the books is that (in general) there are two predominate and different 'visions' of mankind. A vision being an often unarticulated 'feeling' before you've done any analytic reasoning. The foundation on which theories are built.
The first is the constrained vision, which in general, has a rather poor judgment on the nature of man, and accepts that we, individually as humans, are imperfect beings. As such we can only make imperfect decisions and decision making should not be centralized to a few individuals. Intentions and results are not important to this vision, the process is. Decisions are to be spread out and not centralized.
The unconstrained vision, in general, has a poor judgment of men 'as they are', not inherently. Men are capable of improving themselves arbitrarily and constantly, getting ever closer to perfection, through the use of reason. Those with 'more' reason should make decisions for those who have 'less' of it. Centralization and deference to people who 'know best' is often a characteristic of this vision. Intentions and results are very important to this vision, while process is not.
These are not the only 'visions', and its better to think of them like a continuum with different theories closer or further to each side. For hte most part however, throughout history it is easy to categorize a world view as one or the other.
I'll give you a hint, 'left liberals' are unconstrained and 'conservatives' are constrained. Read the fucking book its really good.
Lol, about to read Leviathan too. Heard it's about bending the Knee though.
commie shit. adam smith stole 'his' ideas and paired them with christian socialism. it's leftwing bullshit that leads to poverty compared to true capitalism. pic related. look at this shithole.
Definitely not the impression I got from reading it. He drops lines like that, it's true, but as I recall he flat-out says that parsimony is a virtue, and that the unlimited accumulation of capital is the aim. A major point about the invisible hand of the market is that it will bring about justice even when everyone in the market is aiming specifically at maximizing his own profit, which seems not to happen.
Intentions and results are not important to this vision, the process is
As opposed to
Intentions and results are very important to this vision, while process is not.
So one is the means justify the end, and the other is the ends justify the means.
Can you give me one historical example, or otherwise, of both?
believes in le invisible hand
believes in le invisible sky daddy