Nobody has ever read the whole thing
Nobody has ever read this whole thing either
>>24965318>kapitalhere's the book you're actually looking for.never met an econ prof who has or that can even discuss it on a sparks notes level. and i did not go to dumb dumb schools.>((you)r angry response here)go ahead and ask your local econ professor what he thinks of Smith's subsistence theory of VALUEthey will inevitably mishear you, think you mean wages, and say the plagiarist Ricardo came up with that.Smith spends like 1/4 of the book on this idea, it is by far his most interesting idea, it is foundational to most of his theories, and you cannot have read the book and not know exactly what is meant by the question. nevertheless, you will be hard pressed to find anyone familiar with it and not ricardo because ricardo is who is on the exam, even though the entirety of the idea was expounded first (and better) by smith toughtbeit.
>>24965593Can't escape material conditions.>(you)r angry response m-m-muh invisible hand m-m-muhGovernments nationalizing companies.>(you)r angry response m-m-muh I guess that isn't an individual freedom m-m-muhNo wonder so many people can't explain it.
>>24965611there's a full (very in depth) overview as well as the entire book on the Marxist Internet Archive (marxists.org)marx was if anything a student of smith and reacting to/developing the ideas put forth in this book.a marxist who hasn't read smith (you clearly have not) is like an Aristotelian who hasn't read his Plato. it's just simple ignorance, not purity.
>>24965632>no historicismBoth of my points were well within the boundaries of the preceding model. This theoretical scenario only has Marx being unable to sustain himself if he opts for a newer criticism of the school of thought. With historicism it is true that Marx had a more favorable view of Smith than most of the other classical economists.>either way it shouldn't surprise you that so few can explain the book.Very well Smith anon, you arrived at the unlikeliest place where anyone would still choose to take you seriously.
>>24965318Are there any good English translations of this thing? I know the original done by Moore and Aveling was (partly) overseen by Engels. Suppose that doesn’t mean all that much, but I’d rather read about a spectre than a hobgoblin, you know.
Marxists never get tired of embarrassing themselves. I love them for it.
>>24965686You're on my time Fukuyamyam. I don't need you're complaints about how voting worked against your thesis and whatever opinion you have about which Roman emperor best captures Trump's perversities. Rational walls are inevitable.
>>24965318Nobody needs to. Labour Theory of Value is wrong and all of Marxism flows downstream of it, therefore all Marxist literature can be discredited.
>>24965819Glad to hear you understand that you have always been socialist.
>>24965318>>24965873I made this thread. I've read the first volume and I didn't find it so difficult. Volume II is boring until the last two chapters, but they are so incredibly difficult and frustrating.>>24965669Penguin books
