I just found out that capitalism was always a term of cynical critique, and that Adam Smith and David Hume never used it. Rather, it was a "Commercial Society of Natural Liberties" until in the late 19th century "classical liberals" adopted the term "capitalism" and included this commercial society concept under the umbrella. Adam Smith's "pro-market" standpoint wasn't actually "pro-business". Almost all modern critique of Adam Smith and David Hume's ideas aren't actually leveraged against the ideas, and often have nothing to do with them. The rejection of their ideas is purely reactionary, and almost entirely made up of false attributions. And it's all thanks to the retarded "classical liberals" who equated the egalitarian commercial society envisioned by Adam Smith with exactly the thing it was trying to destroy.
>>18462259Adam Smith was about resource depletion. He said nothing about markets.All posts below are by tards and op is also a tard.
>>18462259yes, capitalist is a marxist term that refers to the elite class in liberal societies who horde wealth and own all productive infrastructure. It's a synonym for robber baron. People who are not robber barons and believe in free market are not capitalists. In liberal terminology, you are simply a liberal. In marxist terminology, you are lumpenproletariat
>>18462259Stop blaming your personal failures on the market
>>18462259It took Ayn Rand to actually define Capitalism properly.
>>18462518Well see that's the interesting thing, Marx didn't advocate against a free market. The reasonable interpretation of his democratic economy is actually downstream of such a thing. I think the strongest point of differentiation is that Smith didn't consider petit bourgeois to be problematic, and sought to merge everyone into that class (a society of merchants and craftsmen). Marx is almost entirely similar to this, but he also extends it to include the increasingly pervasive "manufactory" style of production where workers are totally fungible, and eliminates any form of exclusive, private ownership.Post-marxist views like Lenin and Trotsky advocate for the role of a bureaucratic state in controlling the market, and offloaded the democratization Marx envisioned into an indirect democracy. While this is technically in line with Marx's notion of a "dictatorship of the proletariat", at no point did he ever advocate for an indirect democracy to exist. Just that more rigid controls and safeguards against private ownership would have to be enacted to eliminate class.I'm starting to suspect the whole thing was cope from the start, and that Proudhon and the later Market Socialism were the answer from the very start, and basically indistinguishable from exactly what Smith was talking about.The question is then, why must we fight?
>>18463651>Marx didn't advocate against a free market. retard
>>18463665you didn't read marx
>>18463673A planned economy doesn't have markets.
Private ownership of the means of production is based so long as the ownership is legitimized by homesteading and voluntary exchange. As always the state is the problem.
>>18462259pretty
Who cares. All merchant societies must perish.
