/lit/ - Literature

>less work is needed as capital is more efficient at churning out products
capital isn't some sort of machine which churns shit out on it owns, capital needs to be worked on by workers who end up getting exploited in capitalistic society

Imagine the world if Marx read Adam Smith

>>20769318
I wish he didn't

Adam Smith would be revolted at how capitalism functions now.
In fact we are as far away from Smithian capitalism than we are from Marxian communist.

>>20769482
He would be disgusted by the degrowth talk and all the lowering-your-standards campaigns.
Also he was a good-times-weak-men fag:
>Even so, Smith reserved his highest praise, not only in The Theory of Moral Sentiments but in The Wealth of Nations itself, for the soldier's life. He regretted that "the general security and happiness which prevail in ages of civility and politeness, afford little exercise to the contempt of danger, to patience in enduring labor, hunger, and pain." The division of labor made possible an unheard-of expansion of productivity, as he explained at length in The Wealth of Nations, but it also dulled the mind and sapped the martial spirit.

>>20769318
He expanded on a lot of shit Smith read. Smith wasn't fond of a total free unregulated market because anyone who isn't a child molester understands that disastrous it is, he didn't even like landlords and thought they were scum.

>>20769140
>muh productivity
>muh GDP
>muh materialism
Kill yourself, troll.

>>20769969
Ok groomer.

>>20769318
Marx read all of economic theory to refute it. He was on londons library all day reading for years. People should read him too before saying shit about him.

>>20770758
>Marx read all of economic theory to refute it
And yet he didnt refute shit, didnt worrk a single day in his life and wrote a big pile of shit.

>>20769140
>less work is needed as capital is more efficient at churning out products
are you retarded? how do people "save up" if there are less and less work hours available?

>>20769140
You misinterpret and reduce Smith. Smith was quite Marxian in his approach to capitalism. He was unironically the most ahead of time of all people of his era and the Enlightenment's Plato

>>20769140
Smith didn't write essentially anything about "means of production" or increased productivity through capital investment as you'd think. He was largely ignorant of the industrial revolution just starting around him which is funny. His big thing was the gains from increased division of labour and he had a crude labour theory of value.
Also you should know about the Malthus-Godwin debate. Godwin was a proto-socialist and had a positive view of the future, Malthus attacked him on population statistic grounds and was the reactionary response.

>Those fags can save up and buy their own capital and invest in capital.
The big theoretical problem is what the fuck do you mean by "capital". It seems obvious enough but isn't. If you think capital is just some sort of physical thing than you're at odds with all mainstream economics which has to deal with the monetary expression of all that interchangeable stuff plush capitalized future revenue streams in the mix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_capital_controversy

>>20770695
I'm against commies too, you absolutely retarded hylic.

>>20769140
>Those fags can save up and buy their own capital and invest in capital.

They never seem to understand this.

>>20770758
He was an idiot that lived with his mother.