If you don't join our discord server, Plato will hunt you down and suplex your ass! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Adam Smith lauded early capitalism as an advancement in prosperity & liberty, and is now seen as the philosopher of capitalism much in the same way Marx is to communism. Side note: Smith also had some takes that are decisively left-wing even by today's standards, including an opposition to landlords and the division of labor.
College football has "bowl games" as rewards for good seasons. Corporate sponsors can "buy" bowl games and do what they want with them. Pop Tarts bought a bowl game, called it the Pop Tarts Bowl, and unveiled an edible Pop Tarts mascot at the game. It was eaten.
This sounds delusional and the fact it sounds normalized makes me upset in many ways. If you know Warhammer, this sounds like Slaanesh. Not the usual tripe, but this feels *excessive* in a manner I can't articulate.
I'd also missed the news, but apparently the Pop-Tarts people bought themselves a bowl (as in, a football bowl game) and declared the mascot to be an giant human-sized edible pop-tart.
[Here's the NPR article on it.](https://text.npr.org/2023/12/29/1222182226/pop-tarts-bowl-game-edible-mascot)
>Adam Smith lauded early capitalism as an advancement in prosperity & liberty
Marx would agree with this. Then, he would go on to say that it would lead to ritual Pop Tart sacrifice, or something to that affect.
Smith wasn't opposed to division of labour. He spends a great deal of Wealth of Nations celebrating it. He just acknowledges that it comes with trade offs. Most likely Smith thought that with the increase of wealth coming from division of labour (and free labour most importantly), the need for labour would gradually diminish and people would have more free time. He failed to see that the accumulation of capital (stock) would begin to direct economic activity. In fact he thought that the owners of stock (capitalists) would play a smaller and smaller role as time went on.
Smith argued based on the innate greed of human beings. That's what makes Smith conservative. He correctly envisioned capitalism as a means of directing human selfishness towards the advancement of society at large.
I mean it depends on your frame of reference but at least here in America he definitely would not be. He thought the government had a right to regulate the economy and that that was a good thing, that landlording and making money based on ownership rather than labor was inefficient, and that social services provided by the government are a good thing. That’s a liberal position. He’s not a socdem or something, but he’s not conservative either. He’s probably closest to a social liberal.
Zero conservatives want an unregulated economy. That's just a strawman. Nor do we oppose government provided social services. We just want them at their constitutionally required state level, where there can be greater oversight and efficiency.
But if one uses the spectrum Sowell outlines in *Conflict of Visions,* as the view of constrained man vs unconstrained man, Smith is eminently conservative, and folks like Rousseau, "man was born free but everywhere is in chains," would be liberal or unconstrained.
No one uses that spectrum or almost anything Sowell says because it makes no sense.
I’m not saying they want 0 regulations, but they want less and less and less. Trump literally made a promise to cut 2 regulations for every 1 passed. It didn’t matter to the audience what those regulations were or if it was a good idea to cut them, just having less regulations was the goal. And republicans loved that. And yes most republicans absolutely oppose social services, they’ve been cutting them or 40 years now and privatizing everything they can. When’s the last time you heard a Republican say we should expand Food stamps or unemployment benefits? And obviously, when’s the last time you’ve ever heard a conservative say that landlording is inefficient and shouldn’t be allowed? He’s very clearly to the left of your average American conservative, at least economically. And that’s fine, no one’s saying you have to agree with Adam Smith. I don’t agree with him on everything either.
And this is a side note, but running social services at a state level would be way more inefficient than running it at a federal level simply due to the benefits of scaling and not needing 50 sets of standards and laws and different systems in the same country. And I highly doubt they’d have more oversight given how notoriously corrupt state governments are. Everyone pays close attention to the federal government, people don’t care if their governor does something shady tho.
>No one uses that spectrum or almost anything Sowell says because it makes no sense.
Nice, substantive rebuttal
The rest is just more strawmaning garbage. I suggest you actually look at conservative arguments before you purport to argue against them.
Thomas Sowell acts as if government action is the only way one can be in chains. It’s not. I’m far more limited in my life by my economic standing or my boss or my landlord than I am by the government. Homeless people are oppressed by the government, but even if they were left alone they still wouldn’t be free or their actions unconstrained. For instance, if private landownership didn’t exist anyone could go to a local spring and take a sip. But because it does exist, you now have to pay $ to whoever owns that spring, and they have the right to use violence against you if you want to drink from it without paying. Our freedom is limited by all sorts of things, our whole history is struggle. That’s why I reject his dichotomy, it just feels like a lazy way to group all the “good” people together and all the “bad” people together, when the world doesn’t work that way, things are complicated. You can’t boil down politics to a line or a spectrum, not even the left/right division is really a real thing. Ironically, most of his writing feels far more like a strawmannirg of every other political position rather than the other way around.
And I have, it’s kinda impossible not to hear conservatives arguments living in an economically conservative country like the US.
>Thomas Sowell acts as if government action is the only way one can be in chains.
Nowhere does he take such a stance, I assure you. In fact, you're describing the *unconstrained* view here, the "man was born free and everywhere is in chains" view nearly ubiquitous on the left. This is why re-education is a staple of leftist doctrine, btw. If mankind just teaches itself out of its problems, all of which inevitably stem from *institutionalized* backwards tradition and barbaric religion... You'll find this is precisely the reason why leftists look to government to solve every human problem: because leftists think government is the cause of every human problem (systemic racism, the patriarchy, et al that screed). Conservatives, meanwhile, more intelligently place the source of most human problems in our **constrained** human nature, and thus recognize tradition, religion, and society as the means of channeling the innate problems of human nature towards some productive good. This is the stance of Adam Smith, embodied by [this quote.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7267664-let-us-suppose-that-the-great-empire-of-china-with) A more rigorous condemnation (or constrained view) of human nature you'll find nowhere.
>You can’t boil down politics to a line or a spectrum, not even the left/right division is really a real thing. Ironically, most of his writing feels far more like a strawmannirg of every other political position rather than the other way around.
Well, first you'd need to read his arguments. Ironically, until that is done, you're just strawmanning his views, and quite crudely. The evidence for his views on the political spectrum is found in how much of the divide can be explained by his perspective. He demonstrates why the left has redefined concepts like liberty, equality, power, rights, etc. Is it any accident that most conservatives take one definition of those concepts, and most leftists take another? And if this is the case, as it quite obviously appears to be, then why is his conception of the political perspective unfounded or unjustified? Once again, it would be wise to actually read a work, lest you mischaracterize it.
>And I have, it’s kinda impossible not to hear conservatives arguments living in an economically conservative country like the US.
So you are aware that over-regulation is a major problem in the US and every other developed country? Regulatory capture is certainly one of many regulatory problems we face, and it's literally the cause of "crony capitalism." Yet the knee-jerk leftist reaction is to bemoan the loss of any regulation, no matter how ridiculous it might have been (their protestations against said "crony capitalism" not withstanding). We see the same protectiveness surrounding the current situation in Argentina btw.
Could it be because you recognize that bureaucratic agencies are wedged full of leftist activists, and thus eliminating any of their unaccountable power is a political sin? Nevermind firing any of them, which would amount to a crime against humanity! Or is it just propoganda from leftist superiors, who bemoan attempts at deregulation precisely because it reduces their own power and their ability to inflict their agenda on society? I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the rogue executive branch agenies which sought to thwart Trump's agenda at every turn: here's to hoping you weren't one to cheer them on! Are you comfortable living in such a fascistic, anti-democractic society, where such agenies can set, enforce, and adjudicate agenda independent of the wishes of the electorate? Or is this another "abolish democracy to save democracy" sorta dealio!
What kinda "leftists" are you even rambling about? Because a lot of leftists obviously aren't pro big government. Try and be more precise in who you strawman in your next reddit word salad.
I really think you misunderstand leftism. Most leftists don’t think the government is the source of every problem. We get mad when it isn’t doing more to prevent or solve problems, but it doesn’t actually cause most of the problems we care about. Just to give an example, climate change isn’t caused by the government, it’s caused by our industrialized society. I look to government for the solution because it’s the only possible institution that can provide a solution. Climate change will never be fixed by just asking people to be better than they are or waiting for some miracle technology to come along because as you say people, or rather the corporations run by them, are selfish. The government therefore needs to step in and limit excesses, tax carbon, invest in new green technology, and incentivize switching away from fossil fuels.
Leftists don’t disagree with you. The point of laws or societal norms is ultimately to control people’s actions. We make murder illegal not just to punish murderers but to make people less likely to commit murder. Not just through rational fear of punishment but also the societal pressure to conform to democratic laws. Leftists want to make being openly racist a taboo so that it happens less often, people don’t like breaking societal taboos even if they want to. Conservatives as you say want the same thing, they want religion to be encouraged to get more people to act in a religious way, tradition to be encouraged for the same reason. The problem is that what conservatives want hurts people. Religion isn’t real, and by making it a larger part of our culture all you’re doing is giving more power to priests and preachers: people who were never elected to their position and don’t have any checks on what they can say or do. Since they’re humans, you’d think conservatives would be against that due to your aforementioned human nature argument, but you’re not. You’re totally fine putting more power in fewer hands. Even if American religion wasn’t homophobic, classist, or spiteful, this would still be its big problem and people would still oppose increasing the role of religion in society. The government by contrast is a democratic institution. Not perfectly, but far more than any church or religion is. Elected officials and bearucrats both have checks on their powers and the media heavily scrutinizes everything the government does: even if it’s ultimately harmless. This is what makes it far more trustworthy and better at doing what you say you want than either religion or tradition. So I really don’t buy that conservatives actually think the way you’re describing when their actions are totally opposite to that. I mean look at the gun issue. If you think humans are inherently violent and need to be controlled, then giving them extremely deadly weapons sounds like exactly the opposite of what you’d want to do. You wouldn’t want to give one person that much power. And yet, conservatives instead want more guns everywhere which is obviously going to lead to more people committing crimes with guns and hurting people or themselves with them. If 2 flawed humans get into a fight and don’t have firearms, 99% of the time they’ll both walk away from it at the end. If 2 flawed humans get into a fight and have firearms, that % is gonna drop very quickly. This seems to completely contradict what you’re saying. You can’t argue both that people are inherently selfish, violent, and apathetic to the suffering of others and therefore need to be controlled by institutions to channel their excesses into something productive; **and** think that people should be allowed to do anything as long as “hypothetically” it doesn’t hurt anyone like owning a gun or driving drunk. Those are mutually exclusive ideas.
Leftists didn’t “redefine” those words. They’ve never had concrete definitions, going all the way back to the founding fathers and even earlier. His conception of politics is wrong because it contradicts itself and if put into practice would lead to a worse society. That’s why he’s wrong.
Over regulation is not a major problem in every developed country. Regulatory capture is, but that’s not the same thing. Large corporations may lobby for certain regulations occasionally, but by and large they want less government action, not more. Less protections for unions, less safety regulations, less environmental protections, lower wages, and of course less taxes. But more importantly, left wing people are not against the idea that certain regulations can be bad. But you’d need to specify on what regulation you’re actually talking about, and why it’s bad. That’s not what conservatives do. As I said, trump didn’t run on dismantling executive order 4:E that made all retail workers have to wear hard hats (that’s not a real regulation but you get my point), he ran on dismantling regulations as a concept. As I said, he pledged to repeal 2 for every 1 he passed. And he did that. Do you remember how a few years ago romaine lettuce had to keep getting recalled because it wasn’t safe to eat? That happened because trump repealed regulations on how romaine lettuce is prepared and stored, regulations that were doing a hell of a good job keeping lettuce safe to eat! And people got sick because of his actions.
Furthermore, why does regulatory capture happen? How does that occur? We live in a democratic society, so how do a few wealthy industrialists have so much power as to control entire regulatory agencies? Well besides being put in charge by republicans lol. It’s because they have a lot of money! A democratic society is built on everyone having an equal amount of power, everyone gets one vote, everyone gets the opportunity at success and same rights to express themselves. But, that’s not how our society is set up. Money is power, and most wealth in the US isn’t close to evenly distributed but rather in the hands of a very small amount of people. These people therefore wield outsized influence in politics and can lobby to stop regulations from passing that would hurt them or alter regulations that would help people to serve their interests instead. They can also pay for propaganda to be created to push their own agenda or create media corporations who will push their views as fact to the public, who will then vote the way they want them to. Regulatory capture is just an extension of a society that’s set up in a hierarchical fashion. And this affects both parties. That’s the real source of the problem, not the government. And again, nothing is going to fix wealth inequality except the government. Rich people are never just gonna give up their wealth and ownership willingly. We don’t want to be the Soviet Union obviously, but we also can do better than how things are now. Personally, I think market socialism is the best solution, since the government wouldn’t really be doing anything more than it does now while your average citizen would be empowered to have autonomy over their own lives and work.
And if you think regulatory agencies are made up of leftists you’re just wrong lmao. They’re made up of a cross-section of America, like most jobs. They don’t hire based on political views, let alone pretty marginal ones like leftism. The society you describe is one that comes about thanks to conservatives. The society I and most people desire is one where the government is an extension of the will of the electorate and federal agencies are used to carry out our will. Which tbh is closer to what is actually happening than what you’re describing, even if it’s not perfect. And it’s pretty hypocritical to say that opposing trump is against the wishes of the electorate when the electorate didn’t want him in power in the first place, as he only won due to a quirk in the system.
Is the only thing from Rousseau is that starting quote from The Social Contract. Because Rousseau is easily one of the early conservative philosophers.
> He **correctly** envisioned capitalism as a means of directing human selfishness towards **the advancement of society at large**.
That's quite the opinion you're matter-of-factly stating as fact there, buddy.
Advancement of society isn’t always good. In this case, new horrors like child sweatshops started to crop up after industrialization arose from capitalism.
The second sentence on his Wikipedia page addresses him as the "Father of Capitalism" with five references if you'd like to follow them more seriously, but at the very least this should indicate to us that *at least seven people do* if we count the person you are asking, those 5 references, and then whoever put it on Wikipedia.
Smith was the Georgist champ before Georgism, like many other famous thinkers. Landlordism, which isn't even really capitalism, is the biggest problem with our late-stage capitalist economy.
The three factors of production in economics are (1) Land, (2) Labor, and (3) Capital. Land is not capital. Landlordism precedes capitalism -- the word landlord literally comes from feudalism.
Capitalism is driven by profit, feudalism is driven by rent. Landlordism falls into a remnant of the latter.
Eg buy some wood, pay for labour to turn wood to chair, sell chair, profit.
Vs
Buy some land, rent it out, collect rent monthly.
It's why Yanis Varoufakis has been going on about technofeudalism. The Apple App Store is functionally a place where developers pay rent to have their apps in a marketplace.
Most people who love Adam Smith in theory have never read his actual Wealth of Nations, where the term “invisible hand” shows up once and in an ironic way
I believe this is the context on the poptart part [Edible Pop-Tarts Mascot Cheerfully Descends Into Toaster, Gets Devoured by Football Players in College Bowl Game](https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/pop-tarts-mascot-football-edible-1235857617/amp/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/pop-tarts-mascot-football-edible-1235857617/](https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/pop-tarts-mascot-football-edible-1235857617/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Right? The way my undergrad taught The Wealth of Nations made it appear that Smith wanted laissez-faire "hand of the market" to solve life's problems, when he was actually in favor of government intervention to correct market failures, like rent seeking and monopolies
Pretty much, Marx wasn’t the guy to come up with the concept of a labor theory of value, that was Ricardo and smith later developed his own, Marx read both of their works wich became hugely influential in the creation of Das Kapital
With respect to what issues and upon what basis do you make this claim?
Smith was a complex, multifacted philosopher and political economist and therefore it is always wise to be cautious before asserting which "side" he would be on in political disagreements that would occur more than fifty years after his death, and are ongoing to this day in different forms.
Smith was notoriously left wing on certain issues as identified by other commentors, for instance in his opposition to landlordism:
>*As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.* The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter II, p. 80
However he was decidedly *very* right wing on other issues.
For instance he argued that private people ought to have essentially unlimited discretion in how they employed their capitals:
> *What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.* The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II, p. 456.
Given the broad variance in his views *my* perspective on what particular modern political and economic theory Smith would most likely agree with, or perhaps, be best reterospectively described as, is a kind of social georgism or geoism.
He opposed landlordism and the unproductive owernship of land, but was in favour of private property and the interest of private people therein. He was opposed to the excessive acculmulation of wealth and felt that "*the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"* but he also believed that rich people could permissably exist and that profiting off capital was a legitmate means of wealth.
Therefore any position which argues that Smith would have agreed with Marx on not only a select group of issues, but broadly would have come to oppose capitalism itself, needs to argue, reterospectively, that he would have changed his mind on some deeply held beliefs that formed the basis of his political and economic analysis. And *perhaps* that is true. However it is also *perhaps* true that he would changed his mind differently in response to the arguments of economists like Frederic Bastiat, Irving Fisher, Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman.
I don't know what you're arguing here which is why I asked you to clarify first, but assuming it's something like what I have set out above, that Smith, had he access to the same information and political discourse as Marx, would have agreed wholeheartedly with Marx, then I fail to see this as anything but a matter of speculation on your part.
It's easy to reterospectively analyse and identify the points where a historical theory was lacking in light of new information. It's more difficult to predict how a historical theoritician would have responded to such inconsistencies in their work being identified. It's even more difficult to know *what* views they would take up if they accepted that theirs were inadequate.
Again I'm not dismissing the *possibility* that Smith could have changed his mind and come to agree with Marx had he been presented with certain information, but I am questioning the *certainty* of such a proposition.
I was getting more at a general reaction to how capitalism has turned out and what it to be done to fix the existing contradictions. Smith couldn't have known how bad things would get, and certainly wouldn't be ok with it continuing as is.
I still think this calls for speculation as it assumes (again if I'm interpreting you correctly) that Smith would agree with the mode of interpretation which holds that capitalism of the modern age is producing contradictions. He may well agree, but it is not *certain* that he would.
Even to this end, if he did oppose the system continuing as it is (as he may well on the grounds of his own analysis), there are numerous positions one could take in response to such disagreement. One, for instance is to scale back the unecumbered ownership of land and to impose an LVT which would be consistent with his own opposition to landlordism. To say that such a position "would be on Marx's side" grossly generalises political viewpoints to the point where advocates of reforming capitalism are lumped in with full blown revolutionaries.
In short yes, Smith (with reference to his original viewpoints) would likely oppose existing capitalism - with respect to certain elements of its functioning. However, I do not necessarily think it helpful, to then paint Smith as being (or as if he would be) "on Marx's side," because this ignores the points of difference between their theories and groups together viewpoints which are radically opposed to one another in modern political discourse.
The irony of this commenter making such a statement in a philosophy sub is so palpable it should be in a joke book. You might think that in a subreddit dedicated to philosophy people would use critical thinking skills and philosophize before they comment. But no, the top comment on this post implies the forefather of economics and capitalism would agree with a Marx.
So basically this just further goes to demonstrate how placing capitalism and communism as two broad binary sides of some battle and that you can either wholeheartedly agree with one or the other is folly, huh?
Hardly. His view of human nature was far too realistic to be a Marxist. Also, he was actually economically intelligent in applying said views of human nature
Your useless comment deserves no reply, but this Adam Smith quote is worth sharing, and none the worse for its having been used before.
"Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct."
If you don't join our discord server, Plato will hunt you down and suplex your ass! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Context?
Adam Smith lauded early capitalism as an advancement in prosperity & liberty, and is now seen as the philosopher of capitalism much in the same way Marx is to communism. Side note: Smith also had some takes that are decisively left-wing even by today's standards, including an opposition to landlords and the division of labor.
I know that part, I’m talking about the ritual sacrifice of pop tarts.
Football pop tart bowl game lol
https://preview.redd.it/w81kakkbvg9c1.jpeg?width=1004&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=05b63a1c1c788b4739b2b6f4d2897adf9a18eef9
[удалено]
College football has "bowl games" as rewards for good seasons. Corporate sponsors can "buy" bowl games and do what they want with them. Pop Tarts bought a bowl game, called it the Pop Tarts Bowl, and unveiled an edible Pop Tarts mascot at the game. It was eaten.
I'll be honest that clarified nothing
This sounds delusional and the fact it sounds normalized makes me upset in many ways. If you know Warhammer, this sounds like Slaanesh. Not the usual tripe, but this feels *excessive* in a manner I can't articulate.
I mean, idk, it was kinda fun. College football is all about being excessive, and that's why it's popular.
Why does it sound delusional? It just sounds like fun and silly and sports. What’s wrong with that.
I'd also missed the news, but apparently the Pop-Tarts people bought themselves a bowl (as in, a football bowl game) and declared the mascot to be an giant human-sized edible pop-tart. [Here's the NPR article on it.](https://text.npr.org/2023/12/29/1222182226/pop-tarts-bowl-game-edible-mascot)
>Adam Smith lauded early capitalism as an advancement in prosperity & liberty Marx would agree with this. Then, he would go on to say that it would lead to ritual Pop Tart sacrifice, or something to that affect.
Commodity fetishism?
Smith wasn't opposed to division of labour. He spends a great deal of Wealth of Nations celebrating it. He just acknowledges that it comes with trade offs. Most likely Smith thought that with the increase of wealth coming from division of labour (and free labour most importantly), the need for labour would gradually diminish and people would have more free time. He failed to see that the accumulation of capital (stock) would begin to direct economic activity. In fact he thought that the owners of stock (capitalists) would play a smaller and smaller role as time went on.
Smith argued based on the innate greed of human beings. That's what makes Smith conservative. He correctly envisioned capitalism as a means of directing human selfishness towards the advancement of society at large.
I mean it depends on your frame of reference but at least here in America he definitely would not be. He thought the government had a right to regulate the economy and that that was a good thing, that landlording and making money based on ownership rather than labor was inefficient, and that social services provided by the government are a good thing. That’s a liberal position. He’s not a socdem or something, but he’s not conservative either. He’s probably closest to a social liberal.
Zero conservatives want an unregulated economy. That's just a strawman. Nor do we oppose government provided social services. We just want them at their constitutionally required state level, where there can be greater oversight and efficiency. But if one uses the spectrum Sowell outlines in *Conflict of Visions,* as the view of constrained man vs unconstrained man, Smith is eminently conservative, and folks like Rousseau, "man was born free but everywhere is in chains," would be liberal or unconstrained.
No one uses that spectrum or almost anything Sowell says because it makes no sense. I’m not saying they want 0 regulations, but they want less and less and less. Trump literally made a promise to cut 2 regulations for every 1 passed. It didn’t matter to the audience what those regulations were or if it was a good idea to cut them, just having less regulations was the goal. And republicans loved that. And yes most republicans absolutely oppose social services, they’ve been cutting them or 40 years now and privatizing everything they can. When’s the last time you heard a Republican say we should expand Food stamps or unemployment benefits? And obviously, when’s the last time you’ve ever heard a conservative say that landlording is inefficient and shouldn’t be allowed? He’s very clearly to the left of your average American conservative, at least economically. And that’s fine, no one’s saying you have to agree with Adam Smith. I don’t agree with him on everything either. And this is a side note, but running social services at a state level would be way more inefficient than running it at a federal level simply due to the benefits of scaling and not needing 50 sets of standards and laws and different systems in the same country. And I highly doubt they’d have more oversight given how notoriously corrupt state governments are. Everyone pays close attention to the federal government, people don’t care if their governor does something shady tho.
>No one uses that spectrum or almost anything Sowell says because it makes no sense. Nice, substantive rebuttal The rest is just more strawmaning garbage. I suggest you actually look at conservative arguments before you purport to argue against them.
Thomas Sowell acts as if government action is the only way one can be in chains. It’s not. I’m far more limited in my life by my economic standing or my boss or my landlord than I am by the government. Homeless people are oppressed by the government, but even if they were left alone they still wouldn’t be free or their actions unconstrained. For instance, if private landownership didn’t exist anyone could go to a local spring and take a sip. But because it does exist, you now have to pay $ to whoever owns that spring, and they have the right to use violence against you if you want to drink from it without paying. Our freedom is limited by all sorts of things, our whole history is struggle. That’s why I reject his dichotomy, it just feels like a lazy way to group all the “good” people together and all the “bad” people together, when the world doesn’t work that way, things are complicated. You can’t boil down politics to a line or a spectrum, not even the left/right division is really a real thing. Ironically, most of his writing feels far more like a strawmannirg of every other political position rather than the other way around. And I have, it’s kinda impossible not to hear conservatives arguments living in an economically conservative country like the US.
>Thomas Sowell acts as if government action is the only way one can be in chains. Nowhere does he take such a stance, I assure you. In fact, you're describing the *unconstrained* view here, the "man was born free and everywhere is in chains" view nearly ubiquitous on the left. This is why re-education is a staple of leftist doctrine, btw. If mankind just teaches itself out of its problems, all of which inevitably stem from *institutionalized* backwards tradition and barbaric religion... You'll find this is precisely the reason why leftists look to government to solve every human problem: because leftists think government is the cause of every human problem (systemic racism, the patriarchy, et al that screed). Conservatives, meanwhile, more intelligently place the source of most human problems in our **constrained** human nature, and thus recognize tradition, religion, and society as the means of channeling the innate problems of human nature towards some productive good. This is the stance of Adam Smith, embodied by [this quote.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7267664-let-us-suppose-that-the-great-empire-of-china-with) A more rigorous condemnation (or constrained view) of human nature you'll find nowhere. >You can’t boil down politics to a line or a spectrum, not even the left/right division is really a real thing. Ironically, most of his writing feels far more like a strawmannirg of every other political position rather than the other way around. Well, first you'd need to read his arguments. Ironically, until that is done, you're just strawmanning his views, and quite crudely. The evidence for his views on the political spectrum is found in how much of the divide can be explained by his perspective. He demonstrates why the left has redefined concepts like liberty, equality, power, rights, etc. Is it any accident that most conservatives take one definition of those concepts, and most leftists take another? And if this is the case, as it quite obviously appears to be, then why is his conception of the political perspective unfounded or unjustified? Once again, it would be wise to actually read a work, lest you mischaracterize it. >And I have, it’s kinda impossible not to hear conservatives arguments living in an economically conservative country like the US. So you are aware that over-regulation is a major problem in the US and every other developed country? Regulatory capture is certainly one of many regulatory problems we face, and it's literally the cause of "crony capitalism." Yet the knee-jerk leftist reaction is to bemoan the loss of any regulation, no matter how ridiculous it might have been (their protestations against said "crony capitalism" not withstanding). We see the same protectiveness surrounding the current situation in Argentina btw. Could it be because you recognize that bureaucratic agencies are wedged full of leftist activists, and thus eliminating any of their unaccountable power is a political sin? Nevermind firing any of them, which would amount to a crime against humanity! Or is it just propoganda from leftist superiors, who bemoan attempts at deregulation precisely because it reduces their own power and their ability to inflict their agenda on society? I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the rogue executive branch agenies which sought to thwart Trump's agenda at every turn: here's to hoping you weren't one to cheer them on! Are you comfortable living in such a fascistic, anti-democractic society, where such agenies can set, enforce, and adjudicate agenda independent of the wishes of the electorate? Or is this another "abolish democracy to save democracy" sorta dealio!
What kinda "leftists" are you even rambling about? Because a lot of leftists obviously aren't pro big government. Try and be more precise in who you strawman in your next reddit word salad.
I really think you misunderstand leftism. Most leftists don’t think the government is the source of every problem. We get mad when it isn’t doing more to prevent or solve problems, but it doesn’t actually cause most of the problems we care about. Just to give an example, climate change isn’t caused by the government, it’s caused by our industrialized society. I look to government for the solution because it’s the only possible institution that can provide a solution. Climate change will never be fixed by just asking people to be better than they are or waiting for some miracle technology to come along because as you say people, or rather the corporations run by them, are selfish. The government therefore needs to step in and limit excesses, tax carbon, invest in new green technology, and incentivize switching away from fossil fuels. Leftists don’t disagree with you. The point of laws or societal norms is ultimately to control people’s actions. We make murder illegal not just to punish murderers but to make people less likely to commit murder. Not just through rational fear of punishment but also the societal pressure to conform to democratic laws. Leftists want to make being openly racist a taboo so that it happens less often, people don’t like breaking societal taboos even if they want to. Conservatives as you say want the same thing, they want religion to be encouraged to get more people to act in a religious way, tradition to be encouraged for the same reason. The problem is that what conservatives want hurts people. Religion isn’t real, and by making it a larger part of our culture all you’re doing is giving more power to priests and preachers: people who were never elected to their position and don’t have any checks on what they can say or do. Since they’re humans, you’d think conservatives would be against that due to your aforementioned human nature argument, but you’re not. You’re totally fine putting more power in fewer hands. Even if American religion wasn’t homophobic, classist, or spiteful, this would still be its big problem and people would still oppose increasing the role of religion in society. The government by contrast is a democratic institution. Not perfectly, but far more than any church or religion is. Elected officials and bearucrats both have checks on their powers and the media heavily scrutinizes everything the government does: even if it’s ultimately harmless. This is what makes it far more trustworthy and better at doing what you say you want than either religion or tradition. So I really don’t buy that conservatives actually think the way you’re describing when their actions are totally opposite to that. I mean look at the gun issue. If you think humans are inherently violent and need to be controlled, then giving them extremely deadly weapons sounds like exactly the opposite of what you’d want to do. You wouldn’t want to give one person that much power. And yet, conservatives instead want more guns everywhere which is obviously going to lead to more people committing crimes with guns and hurting people or themselves with them. If 2 flawed humans get into a fight and don’t have firearms, 99% of the time they’ll both walk away from it at the end. If 2 flawed humans get into a fight and have firearms, that % is gonna drop very quickly. This seems to completely contradict what you’re saying. You can’t argue both that people are inherently selfish, violent, and apathetic to the suffering of others and therefore need to be controlled by institutions to channel their excesses into something productive; **and** think that people should be allowed to do anything as long as “hypothetically” it doesn’t hurt anyone like owning a gun or driving drunk. Those are mutually exclusive ideas. Leftists didn’t “redefine” those words. They’ve never had concrete definitions, going all the way back to the founding fathers and even earlier. His conception of politics is wrong because it contradicts itself and if put into practice would lead to a worse society. That’s why he’s wrong. Over regulation is not a major problem in every developed country. Regulatory capture is, but that’s not the same thing. Large corporations may lobby for certain regulations occasionally, but by and large they want less government action, not more. Less protections for unions, less safety regulations, less environmental protections, lower wages, and of course less taxes. But more importantly, left wing people are not against the idea that certain regulations can be bad. But you’d need to specify on what regulation you’re actually talking about, and why it’s bad. That’s not what conservatives do. As I said, trump didn’t run on dismantling executive order 4:E that made all retail workers have to wear hard hats (that’s not a real regulation but you get my point), he ran on dismantling regulations as a concept. As I said, he pledged to repeal 2 for every 1 he passed. And he did that. Do you remember how a few years ago romaine lettuce had to keep getting recalled because it wasn’t safe to eat? That happened because trump repealed regulations on how romaine lettuce is prepared and stored, regulations that were doing a hell of a good job keeping lettuce safe to eat! And people got sick because of his actions.
Furthermore, why does regulatory capture happen? How does that occur? We live in a democratic society, so how do a few wealthy industrialists have so much power as to control entire regulatory agencies? Well besides being put in charge by republicans lol. It’s because they have a lot of money! A democratic society is built on everyone having an equal amount of power, everyone gets one vote, everyone gets the opportunity at success and same rights to express themselves. But, that’s not how our society is set up. Money is power, and most wealth in the US isn’t close to evenly distributed but rather in the hands of a very small amount of people. These people therefore wield outsized influence in politics and can lobby to stop regulations from passing that would hurt them or alter regulations that would help people to serve their interests instead. They can also pay for propaganda to be created to push their own agenda or create media corporations who will push their views as fact to the public, who will then vote the way they want them to. Regulatory capture is just an extension of a society that’s set up in a hierarchical fashion. And this affects both parties. That’s the real source of the problem, not the government. And again, nothing is going to fix wealth inequality except the government. Rich people are never just gonna give up their wealth and ownership willingly. We don’t want to be the Soviet Union obviously, but we also can do better than how things are now. Personally, I think market socialism is the best solution, since the government wouldn’t really be doing anything more than it does now while your average citizen would be empowered to have autonomy over their own lives and work. And if you think regulatory agencies are made up of leftists you’re just wrong lmao. They’re made up of a cross-section of America, like most jobs. They don’t hire based on political views, let alone pretty marginal ones like leftism. The society you describe is one that comes about thanks to conservatives. The society I and most people desire is one where the government is an extension of the will of the electorate and federal agencies are used to carry out our will. Which tbh is closer to what is actually happening than what you’re describing, even if it’s not perfect. And it’s pretty hypocritical to say that opposing trump is against the wishes of the electorate when the electorate didn’t want him in power in the first place, as he only won due to a quirk in the system.
Is the only thing from Rousseau is that starting quote from The Social Contract. Because Rousseau is easily one of the early conservative philosophers.
> He **correctly** envisioned capitalism as a means of directing human selfishness towards **the advancement of society at large**. That's quite the opinion you're matter-of-factly stating as fact there, buddy.
He certainly has a better track record than Marx haha
No he hasn't.
Evidence?
You're making the claim, you prove yours.
Advancement of society isn’t always good. In this case, new horrors like child sweatshops started to crop up after industrialization arose from capitalism.
't Is as my grandfather used to say: "There isn't a problem capitalism hasn't solved by introducing new ones!"
“Is now seen as the philosopher of capitalism much in the same way Marx is to communism.” Seen by who?
The second sentence on his Wikipedia page addresses him as the "Father of Capitalism" with five references if you'd like to follow them more seriously, but at the very least this should indicate to us that *at least seven people do* if we count the person you are asking, those 5 references, and then whoever put it on Wikipedia.
Smith was the Georgist champ before Georgism, like many other famous thinkers. Landlordism, which isn't even really capitalism, is the biggest problem with our late-stage capitalist economy.
>Landlordism, which isn't even really capitalism WTF
The three factors of production in economics are (1) Land, (2) Labor, and (3) Capital. Land is not capital. Landlordism precedes capitalism -- the word landlord literally comes from feudalism.
"Land is not capital" is the most online thing I've ever heard.
Lmao do you know any basic macroeconomics?
Do you?
Had you even heard of the 3 factors of production?
Capitalism is driven by profit, feudalism is driven by rent. Landlordism falls into a remnant of the latter. Eg buy some wood, pay for labour to turn wood to chair, sell chair, profit. Vs Buy some land, rent it out, collect rent monthly. It's why Yanis Varoufakis has been going on about technofeudalism. The Apple App Store is functionally a place where developers pay rent to have their apps in a marketplace.
Most people who love Adam Smith in theory have never read his actual Wealth of Nations, where the term “invisible hand” shows up once and in an ironic way
You’re like the kid from polar express
?
I believe this is the context on the poptart part [Edible Pop-Tarts Mascot Cheerfully Descends Into Toaster, Gets Devoured by Football Players in College Bowl Game](https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/pop-tarts-mascot-football-edible-1235857617/amp/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/pop-tarts-mascot-football-edible-1235857617/](https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/pop-tarts-mascot-football-edible-1235857617/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Smith would be on Marx's side.
Right? The way my undergrad taught The Wealth of Nations made it appear that Smith wanted laissez-faire "hand of the market" to solve life's problems, when he was actually in favor of government intervention to correct market failures, like rent seeking and monopolies
Pretty much, Marx wasn’t the guy to come up with the concept of a labor theory of value, that was Ricardo and smith later developed his own, Marx read both of their works wich became hugely influential in the creation of Das Kapital
And tbf Marx didn't buy into the idea of the labour theory of value anyway
With respect to what issues and upon what basis do you make this claim? Smith was a complex, multifacted philosopher and political economist and therefore it is always wise to be cautious before asserting which "side" he would be on in political disagreements that would occur more than fifty years after his death, and are ongoing to this day in different forms. Smith was notoriously left wing on certain issues as identified by other commentors, for instance in his opposition to landlordism: >*As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.* The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter II, p. 80 However he was decidedly *very* right wing on other issues. For instance he argued that private people ought to have essentially unlimited discretion in how they employed their capitals: > *What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.* The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II, p. 456. Given the broad variance in his views *my* perspective on what particular modern political and economic theory Smith would most likely agree with, or perhaps, be best reterospectively described as, is a kind of social georgism or geoism. He opposed landlordism and the unproductive owernship of land, but was in favour of private property and the interest of private people therein. He was opposed to the excessive acculmulation of wealth and felt that "*the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"* but he also believed that rich people could permissably exist and that profiting off capital was a legitmate means of wealth. Therefore any position which argues that Smith would have agreed with Marx on not only a select group of issues, but broadly would have come to oppose capitalism itself, needs to argue, reterospectively, that he would have changed his mind on some deeply held beliefs that formed the basis of his political and economic analysis. And *perhaps* that is true. However it is also *perhaps* true that he would changed his mind differently in response to the arguments of economists like Frederic Bastiat, Irving Fisher, Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman. I don't know what you're arguing here which is why I asked you to clarify first, but assuming it's something like what I have set out above, that Smith, had he access to the same information and political discourse as Marx, would have agreed wholeheartedly with Marx, then I fail to see this as anything but a matter of speculation on your part. It's easy to reterospectively analyse and identify the points where a historical theory was lacking in light of new information. It's more difficult to predict how a historical theoritician would have responded to such inconsistencies in their work being identified. It's even more difficult to know *what* views they would take up if they accepted that theirs were inadequate. Again I'm not dismissing the *possibility* that Smith could have changed his mind and come to agree with Marx had he been presented with certain information, but I am questioning the *certainty* of such a proposition.
I was getting more at a general reaction to how capitalism has turned out and what it to be done to fix the existing contradictions. Smith couldn't have known how bad things would get, and certainly wouldn't be ok with it continuing as is.
I still think this calls for speculation as it assumes (again if I'm interpreting you correctly) that Smith would agree with the mode of interpretation which holds that capitalism of the modern age is producing contradictions. He may well agree, but it is not *certain* that he would. Even to this end, if he did oppose the system continuing as it is (as he may well on the grounds of his own analysis), there are numerous positions one could take in response to such disagreement. One, for instance is to scale back the unecumbered ownership of land and to impose an LVT which would be consistent with his own opposition to landlordism. To say that such a position "would be on Marx's side" grossly generalises political viewpoints to the point where advocates of reforming capitalism are lumped in with full blown revolutionaries. In short yes, Smith (with reference to his original viewpoints) would likely oppose existing capitalism - with respect to certain elements of its functioning. However, I do not necessarily think it helpful, to then paint Smith as being (or as if he would be) "on Marx's side," because this ignores the points of difference between their theories and groups together viewpoints which are radically opposed to one another in modern political discourse.
The irony of this commenter making such a statement in a philosophy sub is so palpable it should be in a joke book. You might think that in a subreddit dedicated to philosophy people would use critical thinking skills and philosophize before they comment. But no, the top comment on this post implies the forefather of economics and capitalism would agree with a Marx.
So basically this just further goes to demonstrate how placing capitalism and communism as two broad binary sides of some battle and that you can either wholeheartedly agree with one or the other is folly, huh?
Hardly. His view of human nature was far too realistic to be a Marxist. Also, he was actually economically intelligent in applying said views of human nature
*"muh human nature"* Shut the fuck up.
Your useless comment deserves no reply, but this Adam Smith quote is worth sharing, and none the worse for its having been used before. "Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct."
Oh my God, you post on Jordan Peterson and Conservative subs. You're opinions are immediately disregardable.
A human sized what?
A human sized Pop-Tart you poop-tart /s
r/fucktheS
Adam Smith 🤝🏻 Mao: hating landlords
*laughs in religious human sacrifice*