Comment by waffletower
6 hours ago
I do take Adam Smith out of context, that is the precise point -- the invisible hand of self-interest is the salient idea that has endured and shaped modern Hypercapitalism. It doesn't matter if he is rolling in his grave at audio frequencies due to my and, more importantly, society's alleged misappropriation of his work and misunderstanding of his many moral considerations. He was effectively soundbited centuries ago and we are still struggling to manage the implications. Saying he was a good guy makes it more difficult to fix the problem.
Maybe you have a valid point here, but by intentionally taking him out of context, it perpetuates the misunderstanding. We'd be better off actually understanding Smith, reading Smith, and grappling with limitations of the invisible hand. Otherwise it is just an exercise in nihilism and blowing everything up.
It's not about whether he is a good guy or not, it is about what we can learn from his writings.
I know he is always associated with the 'invisible hand of the market' idea, but a lot of his writings were about the PROBLEMS that arise because of this invisible hand. He had a lot of good insights into what we have to be careful of when the free market does what it does. We should actually take some of those lessons to shape policy to protect us from the invisible hand.
Noam Chomsky explains (I won't say 'apologizes for') Adam Smith frequently, but I think it is more important to allow modern, living thinkers space and consideration to reflect upon what is happening in our time, rather than relying excessively on canonical figures who didn't have our contemporary context available in their writings. Sadly there is plenty of timelessness, problems recognized in 1776 that still remain unsolved, but too many use the weight and respect for Adam Smith disingenuously to advocate for insane market policies.
Much like Marx, who had a lot of very insightful observations.
Whether what was done in his name is or isn't directly attributable to his writings is somewhat academic. That has taken on a life of its own, and overshadowed all his other ideas.
It has also certainly made talking about class in America very difficult.
Very good comparison. I do have more respect for Marx, the modern concept of life/work balance owes much to his concept of estranged labor ("Life itself appears only as a means to life"), as I haven't had to live in a society afflicted by his excesses and misappropriations, unlike the case of Adam Smith.
Adam Smith mentions something similar as well. He talks about how the worker's attachment to the work is different when he's working in a super specialised part of a production process rather than making the whole product like an artisan.
Nobody is making you live in a free market society.
8 replies →
Now we're discussing "audio frequencies"? My gosh, you really are off the deep end, aren't you.
If you want to effect change, then state your critique precisely, or not at all. Your looney top-level comment has derailed what should be a discussion of how to reign in Polymarket, because you've overstated your case, messed up your references to authority, and apparently you've slandered Aleister f*cking Crowley, too, such that his defenders are arguing about him here, instead of about how to reign in Polymarket.
When you make your side appear detached from all sense and reason, you are functionally no better than controlled opposition.