Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: david graeber on the difference between socialists and anarchists

Posted 1 year ago on June 4, 2014, 10:59 a.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Well, we can talk about the decline of the union movement, but it runs deeper. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the great divisions between anarcho-syndicalist unions, and socialist unions, was that the latter were always asking for higher wages, and the anarchists were asking for less hours. That’s why the anarchists were so entangled in struggles for the eight-hour day. It’s as if the socialists were essentially buying into the notion that work is a virtue, and consumerism is good, but it should all be managed democratically, while the anarchists were saying, no, the whole deal—that we work more and more for more and more stuff—is rotten from the get-go.

I’ve said this before, but I think one of the greatest ironies of history is how this all panned out when workers’ movements did manage to seize power. It was generally the classic anarchist constituencies—recently proletarianized peasants and craftsmen—who rose up and made the great revolutions, whether in Russia or China or for that matter Algeria or Spain—but they always ended up with regimes run by socialists who accepted that labor was a virtue in itself and the purpose of labor was to create a consumer utopia. Of course they were completely incapable of providing such a consumer utopia. But what social benefit did they actually provide? Well, the biggest one, the one no one talks about, was guaranteed employment and job security—the “iron rice bowl”, they called it in China, but it went by many names. You couldn’t really get fired from your job. As a result you didn’t really have to work very hard. So on paper they had eight- or nine-hour days but really everyone was working maybe four or five.

I have a lot of friends who grew up in the USSR, or Yugoslavia, who describe what it was like. You get up. You buy the paper. You go to work. You read the paper. Then maybe a little work, and a long lunch, including a visit to the public bath… If you think about it in that light, it makes the achievements of the socialist bloc seem pretty impressive: a country like Russia managed to go from a backwater to a major world power with everyone working maybe on average four or five hours a day. But the problem is they couldn’t take credit for it. They had to pretend it was a problem, “the problem of absenteeism,” or whatever, because of course work was considered the ultimate moral virtue. They couldn’t take credit for the great social benefit they actually provided. Which is, incidentally, the reason that workers in socialist countries had no idea what they were getting into when they accepted the idea of introducing capitalist-style work discipline. “What, we have to ask permission to go to the bathroom?” It seemed just as totalitarian to them as accepting a Soviet-style police state would have been to us.

That ambivalence in the heart of the worker’s movement remains. Growing up in a lefty, working class family, I felt it all the time. On the one hand, there’s this ideological imperative to validate work as virtue in itself. Which is constantly being reinforced by the larger society. On the other hand, there’s the reality that most work is obviously stupid, degrading, unnecessary, and the feeling that it is best avoided whenever possible. But it makes it very difficult to organize, as workers, against work.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

David Graeber also said that 'a population that is empowered and works together is more difficult to oppress and control' - & by Paul Buchheit and Jim Hightower, see -

http://www.nationofchange.org/cancer-capitalism-1367852286 and -


Never, Ever Give Up On The 99%! Occupy Wall Street! Solidarity.

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Ts Eliot said that when we whisper together our voices are quiet and meaningless.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

Well stop whispering then! Thanks for your downvote and maybe read this important insight into our predicament from Ellen Brown -


And also see - http://publicbankinginstitute.org/ because Banking is way too important to be just left to Wall Street and their Cartel Club at The Federal Reserve!

'North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, the lowest default rate on credit card debt, one of the lowest foreclosure rates, and the most local banks per capita of any state. It is also the only state to escape the credit crisis altogether, boasting a budget surplus every year since 2008.'

Never Give Up Trying To Make Sense Of It All! Occupy Wall Street!

[-] 2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

One person can yell a lot louder (and clearer) than a million. Mass movements simply do not work. Gandhi failed. MLKjr failed. Both were shot. French Revolution. Failed. Paris commune. Failed. Arab spring. Failed. Anti-Iraq war marches. Failed. Tea party. Failed. I can keep going.

Henry Thoreau's disobedience is predicated on the spontaneity of it action. You can only think for yourself.

[-] 5 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

Was The American Revolution a failure? Gandhi - 'failed' - did he? That will be big news to over a billion Indians who just had another election recently. The French love the idea of their Revolution! I note how you don't mention the Chinese Revolution either. D'you think that failed too? It may have been ugly at times but do you think that the majority of the Chinese think it was a failure now?

So what are you talking about? If you are here just to express your disbelief and lack of faith in any kind of collective action then you are in the wrong place. What do you think OWS was all about? Might there be a link between that & the Ellen Brown link above.

Also try to see - http://www.nationofchange.org/has-america-gone-crazy-1401432168

Never Give Up Trying To Understand Society! Occupy The 99% Issues And Solidarity!

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

The American revolution was the secession of a colonial government from its mother country; not a mass movement.

If Gandhi succeeded, then why does India have so many nukes pointed at Pakistan and China? And why are contemporary Indians so obsessed with western consumerism? And why is the rift between Hindus and Muslims on the sub continent worse than ever? Huh? I didn't mention the Bangladeshi genocide in the 70s.

The Chinese revolution was a Bolshevik revolution, not a Menshevik one.

I'd like to think that orthodox Marxism has largely failed in China in favour of American style state capitalism. It's also 25 years since the mass protests in Tiananmen Square failed.

I am here because in 2011, the NYCGA, took a huge leap in human compassion by setting up an autonomous governing body that was based in consensus decision making and took into account the opinions of each and every individual who wished to have their voice heard.

I am NOT here for some hypothetical socialist revolution or whatever. I am here to promote the human dignity which I felt while participating in the governance of my own body and soul for the first time.

OWS doesn't equal socialism.

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

Listening to Americans trying to talk about 'socialism' is like listening to babbling toddlers trying to talk about astrophysics! Cute but devoid of any sense. Half truths and smoke screens - do not an argument make. Talking of toddlers - I have to go get mine soon but as you clearly don't have any critique of capitalism, try to engage with this - http://www.nationofchange.org/cancer-capitalism-1367852286 .

Consensus has its limits and is easily subverted and sabotaged. As OWS found out.

Never Give Up On The 99%! Occupy The 1%!

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Am I wrong then that socialism puts the good of the group over the good of individuals?

Capitalism is just as bad socialism. Both promote the acquisition of material wealth over all else. People care more about how much stuff they can accumulate relative others than they do about learning the location of Iraq on a map.

I am against materialism. I don't care how much stuff you have and you shouldn't care about how much I have.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

Wrong. Again. 'Socialism' puts the real needs of society AND THEREFORE - ALL INDIVIDUALS - over the good of the richest and most powerful and over The Capital Controllers and Owners in 'Our Society'!

http://www.nationofchange.org/bold-shift-americas-minimum-wage-debate-1402584902 and -


Never Lose Sight Of The Common Good & 'General Welfare'! Occupy Some Common Sense!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (31934) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think that this character ( [-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (244) 2 hours ago ) is some kind of ringer - I click on the username and get this message:

The requested URL "https://occupywallst.org/users/HCabret2014/" cannot be found or is not available. Please check the spelling or try again later.

No user profile page.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

Not sure that I get your point about that poster but in any case, here's a link for you in any case -


Never Give Up The 99% Struggle! Occupy The Future! Solidarity

[+] -5 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

The common or greater good is just that. It is the good of most, but not all. Robin hooding the system is just a role reversal, not a fix.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

What are you talking about? Are you some kind of absolutist or something? Or are you shilling for The 1% and Corporations? Of course there's no total fix but even if I can't understand you, perhaps you can try to understand this http://www.nationofchange.org/america-s-ceos-class-all-themselves-1404227147

Never Give Up Exposing 1% Hypocrisy! Occupy The 99% Issues!

[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Consensus was sabatouged by those who wished to see it fail before it even started. Some in OWS wanted to set up a Paris style commune instead of creating a body that would allow everyone to have a say.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 1 year ago

Everyone can have their say but not everyone makes sense when they do. Consensus has its limits because it can be easily hijacked. The best ideas and proposals should be argued out and then voted upon. Then we should take a Utilitarian, common good for the most approach. Tinkering for perfection can come later.

Also see - http://www.nationofchange.org/blogs/jack-edwards/knowledge-power-educate-yourself-1403143471

Never Give Up On The 99%! Occupy Your Imagination & Solidarity!

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

are you really that stupid - the movement for the 8 hr work day failed?? the civil rights movement failed?? so you think we are in the same place as the year 1650 - the kings ruling at the behest of god?? i wonder how we have gone from then to now with all of the failure you see. you need to start reading or go away

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (31934) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You come to experience what "IT" does = Spew Poison. It tries to depress and engender apathy. Best just to flip it the bird give it a down vote ( because no matter what it says - it really hates that ) and just ignore it.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

Good advice

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (31934) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - no one has time for that kind of garbage. scuse - that piece of garbage. Yeah - much better.

[-] -1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

I agree. OWS has no place for science deniers and etymology deniers.

[-] -3 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

To book or not to book? That is my/your dilemma.

You diss me for be book smart and then tell me to read more. Hahahahahahahaha

Cow tipping or bird flipping.

I move that we elect DKAtoday and his colleague Flup to be co-consuls for year of Occupy.

Humans are not animals and 99% of the people want socialism!

[-] -3 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Mass movements have failing for long time before 1650. Gracchus brothers? Athenian democracy? Spartacus?

Mobs are irrational.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

once again you cannot answer the question - ha! dumber than i thought and that is hard to do. who said anything about the mob? so why did 1970 look so different from 1670 - come on give it a shot - earn your pay

[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Mobs=mass movements=group think

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

You really are an ignorant p-o-s, aren't you ?!!! Human hating - loner mthrfkr too, right ?!! Go build your own house, hospital, school, road & bridge, loner boy or go get an education, you ''solitude'' loving ass !

ad iudicium ...

[-] -1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago


The soul of a man under socialism. Oscar Wilde.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

''The evolution of man is slow. The injustice of men is great. It was necessary that pain should be put forward as a mode of self-realisation. Even now, in some places in the world, the message of Christ is necessary. No one who lived in modern Russia could possibly realise his perfection except by pain. A few Russian artists have realised themselves in Art; in a fiction that is mediaeval in character, because its dominant note is the realisation of men through suffering. But for those who are not artists, and to whom there is no mode of life but the actual life of fact, pain is the only door to perfection. A Russian who lives happily under the present system of government in Russia must either believe that man has no soul, or that, if he has, it is not worth developing. A Nihilist who rejects all authority, because he knows authority to be evil, and welcomes all pain, because through that he realises his personality, is a real Christian. To him the Christian ideal is a true thing.

''And yet, Christ did not revolt against authority. He accepted the imperial authority of the Roman Empire and paid tribute. He endured the ecclesiastical authority of the Jewish Church, and would not repel its violence by any violence of his own. He had, as I said before, no scheme for the reconstruction of society. But the modern world has schemes. It proposes to do away with poverty and the suffering that it entails. It desires to get rid of pain, and the suffering that pain entails. It trusts to Socialism and to Science as its methods.'' from :

Perhaps you should try his ''The Ballad Of Reading Goal'' - OR, you could 're-read' Umberto Eco's ''Foucault's Pendulum'' ... ''If you can muster enough Italian'' - as though full and excellent English translations aren't available, you fkn pompous ass. D'you grow your own food btw Mr.''Solitude'' ?!

temet nosce ...

[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

I even make my own cheese. 🐐🍷

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

You certainly produce enough of your own fertiliser, that's clearly for sure !!! Here is an OWS related link, that references someone who is actually the antithesis and polar opposite of your own - selfish, navel-gazing, pseudo-intellectual, humanity hating, lonely ass :

Football beckons now 'cheese boy', so go see if you can learn some new tricks from your dog now and how come you even have a dog given how you are so resplendent in your 'splendid isolation' lolol and in any case - your dog has my solidarity and sympathy.

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Go Italy!!! And England!!! And all other cheese producing nations!! Pecorino Toscana is my personal favourite. Cheddar is second best. Asiago third.

I am not against cooperation. I am against coercion. Cooperation should voluntary, spontaneous and plentiful.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Corporations have been afforded the rights of individuals and 'money' has now been deemed as 'speech', SO ... do you also think that The Corporations and especially The Corporate Banksters, are really going to offer their ''cooperation'' ... 'voluntarily, spontaneously and plentifully' ?!!! Do you see how your 'politics of the personal and personalised' - just plays into the hands of Misanthropic Randian Libertarians ?!! IF - you do not or can not, see that ... then there is actually a major problem - right there, I would suggest !

You are against the notion of a 'better or higher 'ethical standard or consensus' .. 'coercing' a lesser one or a more egalitarian or community orientated ethos cajoling or countering a more selfish, individualistic one & you are also against 'democracy' apparently but you can consider me a 'militant for democracy' !!

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Resistance Is Fertile !!! Your link reflects only fear, ignorance, prejudice & an affiliation to The Ruling Parasite Class paradigms !! Now go find The Love ! + fyi, see ...

I could have more respect for your positions - IF it were not for the delusional, quasi-elitist, human-hating snobbery and disdain for others, that's encoded & embedded in that kind of thinking. Reach For Bolder !!

per aspera ad astra ...

[EDIT : In replacement to the 3rd link above, please see : http://strikedebt.org/drom/ instead]

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

hcabret214=unable to answer simple questions - makes one wonder why that type is on a site like this

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Consider the 'agon' & don't be too harsh, lol :

respice, adspice, prospice ...

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

one of the few times with you that i don't get it!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

LoL !!! I meant ''don't be too harsh'' on HalfwitCabaret but that was before he let it be known that you had forgotten more about Adam Smith then he'll ever know .. so carry on as you wish, lolol !! See my replies to him above but I would still strongly recommend that rather good wiki-link re. 'agon' tho' !

pax et lux ...

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

good response - the truth is always a good response. i should ignore these people - maybe i iwll

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Yes I did. Am I wrong in my points? Adam Smith's capitalism is that of merchants, not of industrialists. Have you read it?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

no but i read this - what do you think - do you agree - Excerpted from Class Warfare, 1995, pp. 19-23, 27-31 DAVID BARSAMIAN: One of the heroes of the current right-wing revival... is Adam Smith. You've done some pretty impressive research on Smith that has excavated... a lot of information that's not coming out. You've often quoted him describing the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people."

NOAM CHOMSKY: I didn't do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There's no research. Just read it. He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. It goes on and on. He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies. He was talking about England and India. He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India.

He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call "national interests." He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the "merchants and manufacturers," and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, "most peculiarly attended to," no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right.

This truism was, a century later, called class analysis, but you don't have to go to Marx to find it. It's very explicit in Adam Smith. It's so obvious that any ten-year-old can see it. So he didn't make a big point of it. He just mentioned it. But that's correct. If you read through his work, he's intelligent. He's a person who was from the Enlightenment. His driving motives were the assumption that people were guided by sympathy and feelings of solidarity and the need for control of their own work, much like other Enlightenment and early Romantic thinkers. He's part of that period, the Scottish Enlightenment.

The version of him that's given today is just ridiculous. But I didn't have to any research to find this out. All you have to do is read. If you're literate, you'll find it out. I did do a little research in the way it's treated, and that's interesting. For example, the University of Chicago, the great bastion of free market economics, etc., etc., published a bicentennial edition of the hero, a scholarly edition with all the footnotes and the introduction by a Nobel Prize winner, George Stigler, a huge index, a real scholarly edition. That's the one I used. It's the best edition. The scholarly framework was very interesting, including Stigler's introduction. It's likely he never opened The Wealth of Nations. Just about everything he said about the book was completely false. I went through a bunch of examples in writing about it, in Year 501 and elsewhere.

But even more interesting in some ways was the index. Adam Smith is very well known for his advocacy of division of labor. Take a look at "division of labor" in the index and there are lots and lots of things listed. But there's one missing, namely his denunciation of division of labor, the one I just cited. That's somehow missing from the index. It goes on like this. I wouldn't call this research because it's ten minutes' work, but if you look at the scholarship, then it's interesting.

I want to be clear about this. There is good Smith scholarship. If you look at the serious Smith scholarship, nothing I'm saying is any surprise to anyone. How could it be? You open the book and you read it and it's staring you right in the face. On the other hand if you look at the myth of Adam Smith, which is the only one we get, the discrepancy between that and the reality is enormous.

This is true of classical liberalism in general. The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them. For example, Humboldt, like Smith, says, Consider a craftsman who builds some beautiful thing. Humboldt says if he does it under external coercion, like pay, for wages, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is. On the other hand, if he does it out of his own free, creative expression of himself, under free will, not under external coercion of wage labor, then we also admire what he is because he's a human being. He said any decent socioeconomic system will be based on the assumption that people have the freedom to inquire and create -- since that's the fundamental nature of humans -- in free association with others, but certainly not under the kinds of external constraints that came to be called capitalism.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Adam smith expressed Classical Economic in his book On the Wealth of Nations. Why do you all believe that this is untrue? Is it untrue?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

did you read the book? i believe that my question was first so you answer mine and i will answer yours - thoroughly!

[-] -1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago




Marx coined the term "classical economics" and recognised that for such a system to work, individuals must be rational and groups be irrational. He did not agree with this, but understood that it was part of classical economics.

Here's another good book: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Just because you understand my answers, doesn't make them wrong. It's like that because you don't understand particle physics, they are wrong.

I'm regurgitating classical economic thought. Individuals tend to be rational, groups tend not to be. This is is because dissent is inevitable in groups and factionalization is inevitable.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

regurgitating is right - this is not classical economics - Mobs=mass movements=group think. even if it were that is not an answer to my question - if those movements have failed what has made 1970 look so much different than 1670. look i know you have no real answers and yet still want to pretend you know something but time to get real. you do a disservice to our movement by such a poor understanding of history and how to discuss. i will give you max neef on classical econ and by the way - i know lots about particle physics!

AMY GOODMAN: So, to avoid another catastrophe, collision, if you were in charge, what would you say has to happen?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: First of all, we need cultured economists again, who know the history, where they come from, how the ideas originated, who did what, and so on and so on; second, an economics now that understands itself very clearly as a subsystem of a larger system that is finite, the biosphere, hence economic growth as an impossibility; and third, a system that understands that it cannot function without the seriousness of ecosystems. And economists know nothing about ecosystems. They don’t know nothing about thermodynamics, you know, nothing about biodiversity or anything. I mean, they are totally ignorant in that respect. And I don’t see what harm it would do, you know, to an economist to know that if the bees would disappear, he would disappear as well, because there wouldn’t be food anymore. But he doesn’t know that, you know, that we depend absolutely from nature. But for these economists we have, nature is a subsystem of the economy. I mean, it’s absolutely crazy.

And then, in addition, you know, bring consumption closer to production. I live in the south of Chile, in the deep south. And that area is a fantastic area, you know, in milk products and what have you. Top. Technologically, like the maximum, you know? I was, a few months ago, in a hotel, and there in the south, for breakfast, and there are these little butter things, you know? I get one, and it’s butter from New Zealand. I mean, if that isn’t crazy, you know? And why? Because economists don’t know how to calculate really costs, you know? To bring butter from 20,000 kilometers to a place where you make the best butter, under the argument that it was cheaper, is a colossal stupidity, because they don’t take into consideration what is the impact of 20,000 kilometers of transport? What is the impact on the environment of that transportation, you know, and all those things? And in addition, I mean, it’s cheaper because it’s subsidized. So it’s clearly a case in which the prices never tell the truth. It’s all tricks, you know? And those tricks do colossal harms. And if you bring consumption closer to production, you will eat better, you will have better food, you know, and everything. You will know where it comes from. You may even know the person who produces it. You humanize this thing, you know? But the way the economists practice today is totally dehumanized.

AMY GOODMAN: And if you’re teaching young economists, the principles you would teach them, what they’d be?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle. One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy. Two, development is about people and not about objects. Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth. Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services. Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible. And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life. AMY GOODMAN: Explain that further.

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Nothing can be more important than life. And I say life, not human beings, because, for me, the center is the miracle of life in all its manifestations. But if there is an economic interest, I mean, you forget about life, not only of other living beings, but even of human beings. If you go through that list, one after the other, what we have today is exactly the opposite. AMY GOODMAN: Go back to three: growth and development. Explain that further. MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Growth is a quantitative accumulation. Development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Every living system in nature grows up to a certain point and stops growing. You are not growing anymore, nor he nor me. But we continue developing ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn’t be dialoguing here now. So development has no limits. Growth has limits. And that is a very big thing, you know, that economists and politicians don’t understand. They are obsessed with the fetish of economic growth.

[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

You don't know much about Adam Smith.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

i know too much about adam i know that -"What we would call capitalism he despised." once again you make my point - thanks

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

"Humans are animals". -HCabret

Copying and pasting an article about max need is not counter-evidence concerning Adam smith or mercantilism at all. Your article doesn't even mention adam smith or mercantilism or the wealth of nations. How can you disprove my points without even addressing them?

[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Why don't you respond with something other than "you're wrong!"? Huh? Are you capable of presenting evidence? Or just calling people you disagree with stupid and young?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

plenty to discuss from max neef and for sure we can talk about if this is true about adam smith - "What we would call capitalism he despised." i am sorry that i say you're wrong all the time but what else can i say when you are wrong all the time - at least when you respond to me - what would you like me to say? and if the shoe fits......... you need to try to get in the spirit of ows - when presented with evidence that counters what you say you must acknowledge that point - too difficult for you?

[-] -3 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 1 year ago

Adam smith's classical economics is merchant capitalism, not state capitalism. That's what I'm trying to say.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

Wrong again youngster. Have you read Adam or just about him. Tell the truth now. Have you read the wealth of nations. Tell the truth now. I will know