3 ms·
As a neo-classical liberal I must admit I still have to read the WoN. However, I have done a quite a lot of research to form my view of economics, which include
by m4nu3l 5y ago
As a neo-classical liberal I must admit I still have to read the WoN. However, I have done a quite a lot of research to form my view of economics, which include summaries of the work of Adam Smith. I know already he was wrong about some of the things he believed in (Labor Theory Of Value) - hence the "neo". While I don't know if he actually criticized Capitalism, I find it quite irrelevant for two reasons.
- For a critique to be of any use you must propose a valid, better alternative. I have never heard of Adam Smith proposing any of that (but I might just be unaware of it).
- Even if he actually criticized Capitalism, concluding "hence Capitalism is bad" is the textbook form of the Appeal to Authority fallacy, unless you discuss his critique in a logical argument.
The only fair point of the article, in case that's true, would be that we shouldn't misrepresent his views.
- wwweston 5y ago> For a critique to be of any use you must propose a valid, better alternative It's always nicer when critiques come with solutions, but a critique is valid if all it does is correctly point out an undesirable state of affairs, because recognizing and articulating problems clearly is an important initial step in ameliorating them, including actually coming up with any of those alternatives. > Even if he actually criticized Capitalism, concluding "hence Capitalism is bad" The article doesn't seem to argue either "Capitalism is bad" or "Adam Smith thought Capitalism was bad." It does seem to argue "Adam Smith thought Mercantalism was bad" and "Adam Smith's ideas seem to be poorly represented in popular thought, and some of his actual ideas may be only situationally applicable." [Clippy: You seem to be mounting an ideological defense of whatever you believe Capitalism to be, would you like help with that?]