Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx

[CrossoverManiac]

Adam Smith, father of modern capitalism in a debate with Karl Marx, writer of the Communist Manifesto. Who wins?

[GrampaGen]

Draw.

Marx's premises are based loosely on Smith's, in that the classes of capitalism stratify people and leave some people, the workers, unable to escape their station due to the greed of the upper ladder. In theory, the utilitarian harmony would outweigh the systemic allocation Communism would require, giving everyone even footing.

On the other hand, Adam's system has had results, and even if we're looking at the stuff just on paper, it's capable both lower lows and higher highs. Mostly, it appeals to basic human nature. Competition and ambition are the cornerstone of the ideology, and has had great results in real life.

But on paper, in an exchange of notes, it'd be a draw.

[Lochdale]

Smith in a curbstomp. Assuming they are debating in 2007 then Smith has the overwhelming weight of history to utterly destroy Marx.

I guess I can't really rate a man who utterly failed to recognize the growth of the middle class versus a man who predicted it specifically.

[cosmic eagle]

Originally Posted by Lochdale

Smith in a curbstomp. Assuming they are debating in 2007 then Smith has the overwhelming weight of history to utterly destroy Marx.

I guess I can't really rate a man who utterly failed to recognize the growth of the middle class versus a man who predicted it specifically.

Not true. None of true Marxism was ever implemented anywhere. Leninism, Maoism etc. was different from what Marx preached. And it never will due to human greed. Marxism was not designed for a race like humanity.

[cactusmaac]

How did it differ? Total state ownership of the economy was put in place in a lot of countries. That's how Marxism fundamentally operates.

[Player 0]

Actually if anything Marxism as he originally intended is actually much closer to realization than it has been ever before, the development of nations in the EU and Japan as well as that of China, India and Russia are actually evidence of this.

Unlike Maoism, Stalinism or Lenninism, Marx didn't advocate the immediate transferrance to communism but predicted an eventual and slow development towards communism, he specified that societies have a specific line of development: First comes feudalism where societies are run with agrarian economics and ruled over by kings and aristocrats, then comes capitalism with the development towards a manufactoring/industrial economy with the rise of the merchant class and secular governments, then comes socialism where social welfare programs and recognition on the importance of the working class, and then comes communism where the means of production becomes so advanced that everyone's economic needs are fulfilled.

[Phrozen]

Except there was a lot of stuff before Fuedalism.

Fuedalism is not an economic system, its a government system. One that Marx didn't really understand that well or the actual history of well the world.

[Zacharius]

Not true. None of true Marxism was ever implemented anywhere. Leninism, Maoism etc. was different from what Marx preached. And it never will due to human greed. Marxism was not designed for a race like humanity.

According to Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, socialism will never work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Computational_complex ity

see also:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...-324D539B5288}

[cosmic eagle]

Originally Posted by Zacharius

According to Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, socialism will never work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Computational_complex ity

see also:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...-324D539B5288}

Of course it won't. There is nothing wrong with the idea. However, it is incompatible with human nature.

[cosmic eagle]

Originally Posted by Player 0

Actually if anything Marxism as he originally intended is actually much closer to realization than it has been ever before, the development of nations in the EU and Japan as well as that of China, India and Russia are actually evidence of this.

Unlike Maoism, Stalinism or Lenninism, Marx didn't advocate the immediate transferrance to communism but predicted an eventual and slow development towards communism, he specified that societies have a specific line of development: First comes feudalism where societies are run with agrarian economics and ruled over by kings and aristocrats, then comes capitalism with the development towards a manufactoring/industrial economy with the rise of the merchant class and secular governments, then comes socialism where social welfare programs and recognition on the importance of the working class, and then comes communism where the means of production becomes so advanced that everyone's economic needs are fulfilled.

I don't see Japan and the EU turning Communist. And I said Marxism was different because Maoism advocated agricultural control and unlike the rest, Marx never intended totalitarian rule or Cold War style war production. Leninism was really as practical as Marxism will ever get. True Marxism is nigh impossible for humans to attain.

[Mr.Writer]

And that 's why Smith wins. He quotes Kung Pow.

"I'm sure your economic model is very good Marx, but your problem is...this is Earth. With you know, humans. Human humans. With a desire to be free and compete and stuff...

True Marxism can never be implemented the same way true Kryptonite can never be. Reality taints it like a rude awakening on a planet of hats (10 points if you catch the reference).

[Mr.Writer]

On another though, why the hell isn't this a fight.


Smith vs Marx

In Guile's stage

With the Manifesto and Wealth of Nations as strikers (make of it what you will...)


ROUND 1...

[cosmic eagle]

Originally Posted by Mr.Writer

On another though, why the hell isn't this a fight.


Smith vs Marx

In Guile's stage

With the Manifesto and Wealth of Nations as strikers (make of it what you will...)


ROUND 1...

Which book was thicker then?

[GrampaGen]

Originally Posted by Mr.Writer

On another though, why the hell isn't this a fight.


Smith vs Marx

In Guile's stage

With the Manifesto and Wealth of Nations as strikers (make of it what you will...)


ROUND 1...

Smith: Capitalist boom! Capitalist boom!

Marx: Dontupsettheproletariat-kyaku!

[Lochdale]

Originally Posted by cosmic eagle

Not true. None of true Marxism was ever implemented anywhere. Leninism, Maoism etc. was different from what Marx preached. And it never will due to human greed. Marxism was not designed for a race like humanity.

So it's akin to a religious belief then. Not for this mortal world etc. etc. That's all fine and dandy now if we can just get people to accept this and stop trying to implement a fantasty then we'll be fine.