Adam Smith thread

[Atmosfear]

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

[Husein]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

asked a rhetorical question

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.

Your own OP was off-topic you fucking dolt

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.

Since I'm assuming you mean that the OP was off-topic for AI, then it should be moved to General Discussion.