Adam Smith thread
Seems rather... arbitrary to move it to Flames considering that it wasn't a troll thread or anywhere near Flames-esque.
Basically it was moved because Atmosfear finds it amazing (edit: impossible) that Marxists draw heavily from Adam Smith. Apparently this cannot happen (never mind the Labor Theory of Value as a basic example), ergo flames.
Last edited by Husein; 10-22-2009 at 03:16 PM.
I think it has more to do with that you often post walls of texts and beat the same dead horses.
I'm pretty sure I never talked about Adam Smith before. Also, two sentences at most did I write in that thread.Originally Posted by piranhas
I think it's more to do with the fact that it was a fucking stupid thread with no real potential, posted by an inane pseudo-intellectual twat.
What do I win?
To be a pseudo-intellectual it would be necessary for me to describe myself as an intellectual.
Also good job not backing up anything. It's a "fucking stupid" thread because it talked about Adam Smith and was written by a Marxist, and because it was written by an "inane twat" whom Atmosfear doesn't like very much.
Might as well condemn similar "no potential" threads like it into Flames. Munk Debates - Foreign Aid does more Harm than Good would logically suffer the same fate, because it's a debate thread that started off with a question.
I could buy (no, not really) the premises that my thread had "no potential" by itself, but the additions to the effect of "Hurr dumb commie" show that it was obviously put into Flames for a reason rather more involved than that.
I resent my no-attention thread being brought into this. It was an invitation to discussion about the issues involved with foreign aid. Your thread, however, was more along the lines of "Well Marx borrowed heavily from Adam Smith we should read his stuff and then caress each other's genitalia as we talk about what he wrote."
So it's wrong to discuss Adam Smith and his works (particularly if it's written by a damned Commie), but it's a-okay to discuss what you heard over CBC Radio?
It isn't like we have more than two Communists on this forum (one inactive), so there wasn't any possibility of it turning into "My god man, you are so correct." "No, you are." "Oh, Nine Castles, stop being so kind." "No, you." "You first." Especially since the other Communist on this forum seemingly doesn't share my views on anything.
Edit: Since I got a negarep calling me a "faggot," I would like to note that whoever did it probably focused a lot more on the homoerotic nature of the above paragraph than I did while writing it.
Last edited by Husein; 10-22-2009 at 06:53 PM.
man shut up
I fail to see how either of you two are relevant. Your banters are best kept in Flames.
Okay, dipshit, the reason it was moved was because it was a wall of text post that offered no point for discussion. You asked a rhetorical question and proceeded to type 1000 words. Your whole thread could have (and should have) been answered as follows:
Because no one bothers studying communism any more because we live in a society in which capitalists further themselves far more than socialists; every hour spent studying something stupid like Marxism is an hour not spent developing a marketable skill.
Except that your post was 1000 words about a bunch of economists who agree with your opinion that marxism was founded upon Adam Smith's core principles. I'm going to make this big and bold for you so you don't mistake me and argue against a phantom you've concocted and attributed to me:
Your own OP was off-topic you fucking dolt
Talking about abortion addictions (or being on a forum in general) clearly develops a marketable skill. Meanwhile I'm reading about history, economics, sociology, etc. via books. Pretty contributive, I'd say.Because no one bothers studying communism any more because we live in a society in which capitalists further themselves far more than socialists; every hour spent studying something stupid like Marxism is an hour not spent developing a marketable skill.
I'll go look to those Marxists who clearly never achieved anything for my inspiration. Like Grover Furr of Montclair State University, or economist Anwar Shaikh. Or Prof. David Harvey who had a classroom series on reading Capital.
Not really. I offered two links to Marxist works related to Adam Smith, whereas the first two links were Adam Smith's works and David Ricardo's work. Even if my entire post was devoted to establishing that Marxism is the logical conclusion of classical economics, it'd still be relevant because I'm talking about Adam Smith.Except that your post was 1000 words about a bunch of economists who agree with your opinion that marxism was founded upon Adam Smith's core principles.
Any proof of that? I said that it was in a comment, but it clearly wasn't too serious considering that my post would have otherwise just been very short and wouldn't have been structured to as create a discussion.asked a rhetorical question
Apparently talking about Adam Smith and his contribution to economics is something that can be relegated to General Discussion or something. Clearly no one has ever had debates about Adam Smith. Ever.Your own OP was off-topic you fucking dolt
Since I'm assuming you mean that the OP was off-topic for AI, then it should be moved to General Discussion.
Last edited by Husein; 10-23-2009 at 01:47 PM.
TESTICLES
that is all
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
ps if you want to talk about this shit, get a degree in it and earn your right to be respected through creating new ideas rather than just telling us old ones, and then continue to be ridiculed
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
That makes no sense either academically (since academia is mainly concerned with teaching "old" ideas) or in normal life.
not when academia includes research
and are you sure you have any idea of what is "normal life"?
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
what
the
fuck
Let me clarify.
As someone who spent his childhood years being afraid of commie russia until our saviour Ronald Regan won the cold war, and as someone who lives a few short miles from where the Great Senator Joseph McCarthy lays to rest, and also lives near the headquarters for The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society, I find this thread in violation of everything we here in the United States of America stand for. This is the greatest country on earth, and we have the greatest government. Capitalism is by far the best system, and this has been proven time and time again.
So, in closing, fuck you, you commie bastard. I hope you rot in hell.
I may disagree with the things Husein posts but I would defend to the death his right to say them. Or I would if he wasn't such a faggot.
The USSR began its road to shit when Stalin died and revisionists took over the state and repudiated the dictatorship of the proletariat. China, though itself somewhat revisionist, and the Albanian state, both united against Khrushchev and both managed to stand against Soviet imperialism and for Marxism-Leninism. Soviet economic reforms in the 60's-80's crippled the economy, as William Bland noted in his 1979 work The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union. Mao's turn to the right in the 70's, and the rise of Deng after 1978, brought China on a firmly capitalist path as Maoism itself was fairly revisionist in outlook. Enver Hoxha notes this in 1978 work Imperialism and the Revolution.As someone who spent his childhood years being afraid of commie russia until our saviour Ronald Regan won the cold war,
Gorbachev's economic policies transitioned the USSR from state-capitalism to market capitalism, and in the process only wrecked the economy further. But by that point the claim that the USSR was a workers state was clearly foolish, and dual Russian and Ukrainian nationalism led to the death of the USSR.
He caught some Communists, but more often than not he just cost progressives their jobs for a while. That was the goal, of course.and as someone who lives a few short miles from where the Great Senator Joseph McCarthy lays to rest,
Are their offices fluoridated yet?and also lives near the headquarters for The John Birch Society,
Yes, Marxist academics clearly don't do any research.not when academia includes research
OH SHIT WHAT IS THIS IT'S AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSSI
daitengu is the greatest country by girth
I didnt say that. I have studied Marxist academics and I know that they obviously do.
What I said was you should try thinking of something new, rather than linking us to wikipedia, perhaps the worst source for reliability there is on the planet
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
Mrdie has managed to shit this thread up so much I'm going to have to move it to flames, too.
I mean seriously when your OP is off the topic of the question posed in the introductory sentence of the OP, how can you possibly make any argument in favor of the thread?
I only link to Wikipedia in specific cases. Like I don't think I need to cite a journal discussing TSSI or whatever when I can just give a Wiki link that would explain the gist of it, taking into consideration the lack of interest you'd probably have in the subject to begin with.What I said was you should try thinking of something new, rather than linking us to wikipedia, perhaps the worst source for reliability there is on the planet
Because it wasn't off the topic, it was discussing Adam Smith. The introductory sentence established why he is notable.I mean seriously when your OP is off the topic of the question posed in the introductory sentence of the OP, how can you possibly make any argument in favor of the thread?
At the very least it should be in GD or something.
gd is dead
so is this thread
"Casual Intercourse" then. I got used to calling it GD because CD would obviously be redundant and "Casual Intercourse" is basically GD and LWS' CD merged.
don't make me facepalm.jpg again
mr die shut the fuck up
You're just mad that you couldn't take advantage of LAME on LWS.
Cause it was lame
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNAP
I still have Jerome's 2005 banner.
Easily the greatest usergroup of all time.
Easily the smallest picture of all time.
MrDead what the fuck are you trying to achieve? Honestly, this is a serious question.
Your views are stupid and aged enough for you to be a troll, but you spend far too much time writing and "researching" for your silly ass essays
to conclude, Die Mr
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
The topic of the thread (that is, the core question up for debate) that was outlined in your very own first paragraph (hell, first sentence) was "Why don't people know _________?"
The rest of your wall of text did nothing to stimulate the discussion of that topic. If I posted a thread asking "Why don't people like cabbage?" and then posted a thousand words about notable people who like cabbage, then I would be just as dumb and inane as you.
Also, to boot, that thread wasn't even a discussion because no one disagreed that Adam Smith's political economics were a basis of Marx's work because it's a goddamned fact. Just because you can post more words about the fact that everyone else (I mean really, who gives a shit?) doesn't make it an AI thread worth keeping.
Throw in the fact that you posted it and the decision was quite easy. Just like the old communist part, mr die, it really is all about who you know, not what you know.
It doesn't make it a Flames-worthy thread either. As I said, put it in either "Casual Intercourse" or, if necessary, "cryptic's thread emporium."Also, to boot, that thread wasn't even a discussion because no one disagreed that Adam Smith's political economics were a basis of Marx's work because it's a goddamned fact. Just because you can post more words about the fact that everyone else (I mean really, who gives a shit?) doesn't make it an AI thread worth keeping.
After the Khrushchevites took over, yes. Before that no, both Lenin and Stalin regarded ideology as very important. Both stressed the need to fight bureaucracy, to combat revisionism, and to purge rightists.Just like the old communist part, mr die, it really is all about who you know, not what you know.
As anti-communist historian Ian Grey notes:
"Stalin could not maintain direct control over the purge. He was aware that the NKVD had arrested many people who were not guilty and that of the 7 to 14 million people serving sentences of forced labor in the GULAG camps many were innocent of any taint of disloyalty. They were inevitable sacrifices, inseparable from any campaign on this scale. But he resented this waste of human material. The aircraft designer Yakovlev recorded a conversation with him in 1940, in which Stalin exclaimed: 'Ezhov was a rat; in 1938 he killed many innocent people. We shot him for that!'"
(A.S. Yakovlev, Tsel Zhizni (Moscow, 1966), p. 179. Quoted in Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p. 289)
"It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words."
(See Lenin: Collected Works Volume 32; pp. 56-57)
"A second shortcoming. It consists in introducing administrative methods in the Party, in replacing the method of persuasion, which is of decisive importance for the Party, by the method of administration. This shortcoming is a danger no less serious than the first one. Why? Because it creates the danger of our Party organisations, which are independently acting organisations, being converted into mere bureaucratic institutions. If we take into account that we have not less than 60,000 of the most active officials distributed among all sorts of economic, co-operative and state institutions, where they are fighting bureaucracy, it must be admitted that some of them, while fighting bureaucracy in those institutions, sometimes become infected with bureaucracy themselves and carry that infection into the Party organisation. And this is not our fault, comrades, but our misfortune, for that process will continue to a greater or lesser degree as long as the state exists.
And precisely because that process has some roots in life, we must arm ourselves for the struggle against this shortcoming, we must raise the activity of the mass of the Party membership, draw them into the decision of questions concerning our Party leadership, systematically implant inner-Party democracy and prevent the method of persuasion in our Party practice being replaced by the method of administration."
(Stalin, J.V. The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.): December 2-19, 1927. Works, Vol. 10. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954.)
Etc. Needless to say, these same bureaucrats opposed Stalin's democratic reforms to allow for multi-candidate elections.
Marxists are trolls, apparently?Your views are stupid and aged enough for you to be a troll,
see, now you're getting it
progress
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
mr die shut the fuck up
Bookmarks