What if a Democratic candidate for VP cited Karl Marx as a huge influence?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Seriously, imagine if they said Marx's writings encouraged them to get into politics, and then some disclaimer like "Well yeah I don't agree with him on everything and don't agree with him on religion but he was generally right about the class struggle."

Seriously can you imagine even the outcry or comprehend just how unrealistic that is?

[Vosem]

Ayn Rand is much, much more politically acceptable in America than Karl Marx.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ayn Rand is much, much more politically acceptable in America than Karl Marx.

Which is unfortunate.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

That's what happens after 40 years of cold war that vilifies anything remotely anti-capitalist. As the cold war generation (especially the boomers) die off, you'll probably see an economic shift to the left, but probably nothing close to outright acceptance of Marx in the mainstream.

[Vosem]

That's what happens after 40 years of cold war that vilifies anything remotely anti-capitalist. As the cold war generation (especially the boomers) die off, you'll probably see an economic shift to the left, but probably nothing close to outright acceptance of Marx in the mainstream.

I doubt it, myself -- in my experience, people my age are more likely to espouse 'deficit hawk' views than adults, just reflexively.

[milhouse24]

I think the aversion to Marx has something to do with the Soviet Union being our sworn enemies for almost 80 years. 

But now it might be cooler to be labeled a Communist. 

[Politico]

Karl Marx is the antithesis of Adam Smith, whose ideas are the foundation of America. Consequently, adherence to Marx is about as anti-American as you can get.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Karl Marx is the antithesis of Adam Smith, whose ideas are the foundation of America. Consequently, adherence to Marx is about as anti-American as you can get.

Well that's unbelievably stupid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The media would totally destroy them.

[Comrade Funk]

Karl Marx is the antithesis of Adam Smith, whose ideas are the foundation of America. Consequently, adherence to Marx is about as anti-American as you can get.

Well that's unbelievably stupid.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Karl Marx is the antithesis of Adam Smith, whose ideas are the foundation of America. Consequently, adherence to Marx is about as anti-American as you can get.

Well that's unbelievably stupid.

[Lief 🗽]

Come on people, it's Politico. No need to point out the obvious.

[The Mikado]

Karl Marx is the antithesis of Adam Smith, whose ideas are the foundation of America. Consequently, adherence to Marx is about as anti-American as you can get.

This might be a silly question, but have you ever actually read Wealth of Nations?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also amusing to see the use of 'antithesis' in that whole general context, for various reasons...

[Adam Griffin]

Karl Marx is the antithesis of Adam Smith, whose ideas are the foundation of America. Consequently, adherence to Marx is about as anti-American as you can get.

This might be a silly question, but have you ever actually read Wealth of Nations?

I'm pretty sure his head would explode.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cavalcade]

I, personally, find it amusing that someone whose economic utopia was apparently "do whatever you feel like doing, regardless of market demand, because it is immoral to force people to do things for others in order to make money, oh and if someone pays you for something you make and changes it in a way you don't like that is an attack on you as the maker of that thing and you have the right to destroy it" is treated as the opposite of Marx.

[Politico]

Karl Marx is the antithesis of Adam Smith, whose ideas are the foundation of America. Consequently, adherence to Marx is about as anti-American as you can get.

This might be a silly question, but have you ever actually read Wealth of Nations?

I'm pretty sure his head would explode.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of the above quotes are elaborated upon and put into proper context with the following excerpts (all of which are much better known sections of The Wealth of Nations because they provide the full breadth of his philosophy in a concise manner whereas the above quotes can be taken out of context in order to push an agenda that is diametrically opposed to Smith's philosophy of laissez-faire):

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

" I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations."

"Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

As you can tell, Adam Smith is not against all government intervention, merely all intervention outside of the realm of defense, law/order, and basic infrastructure. He believed in strong checks/balances enforced upon those carrying out the proper functions of government. Adam Smith was an inspiration to our Founding Fathers. In contrast, Karl Marx's ideas are a threat to the Constitution. Only ignorant youth, fools, traitors and anti-American (or foolish) foreigners believe in the tenets of Marxism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I consider that it's high time that America move away from its fetishistic, mordant obsession with the specifics of Enlightenment liberalism, an in many ways extraordinarily naive worldview (producing, for instance, the flagrantly and disgustingly hypocritical and self-serving John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) that is of the same time period as the Jacobite Risings, the kokugaku movement, and the Zemene Mesafint. Understand that I say this not to articulate a falsely 'progressive' teleology of history, but different times are different--sometimes richer, sometimes poorer, sometimes sadder but no wiser--and currently 'The America of the Founding Fathers' is somewhere in the same territory as 'The Ireland That We Dreamed Of' in terms of its actual relevance to anything (and frankly 'The Ireland That We Dreamed Of' presents an in some ways nicer, though less realistic image). There's absolutely nothing save historical accident and admittedly long-standing cultural affinity to distinguish the importance of Adam Smith and Karl Marx to the world as it currently is.

There's also a HUGE difference between Adam Smith or even David Ricardo and Ayn Rand. Smith was by most accounts a benign and well-liked individual.

[Politico]

I am not disagreeing that there is a big difference between Ayn Rand and Adam Smith, but there is also a big difference between citing Rand as an influence versus Marx. Rand is largely a pop phenomenon who, when it comes to matters of economics, largely ripped off Smith's ideas, making them edgier and more controversial in the process (a businesswoman at heart, she did well marketing her pop products). In contrast to Rand, the ideas of Smith and Marx have impacted the world more than any other individuals of the past 250 years. Smith has brought the world greater prosperity and peace; Marx has brought the world greater oppression and war. One who states they were influenced by Marx would be the polar opposite of one who states they were influenced by Smith, not Rand.

As for the rest of your post, arguing that we should move away from the philosophy of Adam Smith, all I have to say is that market forces are exactly that: Forces of nature (human nature, to be precise). Ignore them at your own peril.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am not disagreeing that there is a big difference between Ayn Rand and Adam Smith, but there is also a big difference between citing Rand as an influence versus Marx. Rand is largely a pop phenomenon who, when it comes to matters of economics, largely ripped off Smith's ideas, making them edgier and more controversial in the process (a businesswoman at heart, she did well marketing her pop products). In contrast to Rand, the ideas of Smith and Marx have impacted the world more than any other individuals of the past 250 years. Smith has brought the world greater prosperity and peace; Marx has brought the world greater oppression and war. One who states they were influenced by Marx would be the polar opposite of one who states they were influenced by Smith, not Rand.

What I'm disagreeing with is primarily that there's such a thing as a 'polar opposite' in the social sciences. Or any discipline, really, other than grammar and mathematics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The quasi-religious significance attributed to economic forces is one of the aspects of the Enlightenment worldview that I think is most damaging, honestly. I'm willing to accept that risk.

[Politico]

I am not disagreeing that there is a big difference between Ayn Rand and Adam Smith, but there is also a big difference between citing Rand as an influence versus Marx. Rand is largely a pop phenomenon who, when it comes to matters of economics, largely ripped off Smith's ideas, making them edgier and more controversial in the process (a businesswoman at heart, she did well marketing her pop products). In contrast to Rand, the ideas of Smith and Marx have impacted the world more than any other individuals of the past 250 years. Smith has brought the world greater prosperity and peace; Marx has brought the world greater oppression and war. One who states they were influenced by Marx would be the polar opposite of one who states they were influenced by Smith, not Rand.

What I'm disagreeing with is primarily that there's such a thing as a 'polar opposite' in the social sciences. Or any discipline, really, other than grammar and mathematics.

What is the antonym, polar opposite if you will, of the individual? The collective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, but scarcity is not something you can magically wish away with legislation. You certainly cannot change human nature, the result of millions of years of evolution.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I am not disagreeing that there is a big difference between Ayn Rand and Adam Smith, but there is also a big difference between citing Rand as an influence versus Marx. Rand is largely a pop phenomenon who, when it comes to matters of economics, largely ripped off Smith's ideas, making them edgier and more controversial in the process (a businesswoman at heart, she did well marketing her pop products). In contrast to Rand, the ideas of Smith and Marx have impacted the world more than any other individuals of the past 250 years. Smith has brought the world greater prosperity and peace; Marx has brought the world greater oppression and war. One who states they were influenced by Marx would be the polar opposite of one who states they were influenced by Smith, not Rand.

What I'm disagreeing with is primarily that there's such a thing as a 'polar opposite' in the social sciences. Or any discipline, really, other than grammar and mathematics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The quasi-religious significance attributed to economic forces is one of the aspects of the Enlightenment worldview that I think is most damaging, honestly. I'm willing to accept that risk.

REPENT, NATHAN! THE MARKET COMPELS YOU!

[Lief 🗽]

Smith has brought the world greater prosperity and peace; Marx has brought the world greater oppression and war.

rofl, joke poster

[Politico]

Smith has brought the world greater prosperity and peace; Marx has brought the world greater oppression and war.

rofl, joke poster

You'll understand when you grow up.

[Lief 🗽]

Smith has brought the world greater prosperity and peace; Marx has brought the world greater oppression and war.

rofl, joke poster

You'll understand when you grow up.

There's no way you're older than me bro. What are you, like seventeen?