The tide seems to be finally turning. Some time ago, I came across what, to me, was a fascinating

and truly astonishing article entitled, Who Owns Adam Smith? in the Charlestown Gazette (West Virginia) written by Rick Wilson. I was reading on the Common Dreams website, when I followed a link to the article.

I find it difficult to convey how surreal I found its implications, since Smith's criticisms of unfettered capitalists (never mind capitalism!) are so unequivocally condemnatory. (In fact, he was simply invoking the ancient Christian maxim, that Grace builds upon nature. Incorrigible predators have their role in the economic eco-system, just so long as they are closely monitored, tagged.)

In the light of the article, I've been banging on for a while on this very theme, for simple reason that, as we all know, the far-right has been trumpeting the very antithesis of this, and claiming Smith as their ultimate guru, their founding father even. There is even a neoliberal, 'free market' think-tank called the Adam Smith Institute!

It occurred to me that publicising this grotesque misrepresentation of Smith's teachings should be uniquely effective in forcing the right-wing to face the truth of the economic catastrophe they have brought about, in all its terrible dimensions. After all, with Rick Wilson's synopsis of Adam Smith's words, it could scarcely be easier to quote chapter and verse, against them; to make them eat their own words. It's a chance in a life-time to be able to use their own 'holy of holies' (as they had cast Smith), in order to batter them into submission, into acceptance that they are either fools or knaves or both. Force them to face their denial, dead on.

Finally, I have been coming across one or two references to Smith's TRUE words in the media, and pointing out how they had been so shamelessly misrepresented by Smith's arrant, neoliberal libellers.

Today, Stephen Glover writes in the Daily Mail on the subject of Vince Cable's putative attack on capitalism, and cites Adam Smith's words, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment or diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Cable had paraphrased an admonition of Smith regarding unfettered capitalism, stating, "Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can, as Adam Smith explained over 200 years ago."

Evidently, in jocular vein, the Economist's headline was, "Karl Marx meets Adam Smith". But truth to tell, now we've started(!), that encounter is by no means far-fetched, since Smith contended that people should pay tax as closely as possible in proportion to their income. Did even Uncle Karl propose that? Maybe, aye. Maybe no. Maybe och the noo.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1314367/I-agree-Vince-Cable-says-Pity-posturing.html

I think their playbook is Goldstein's book.

If you find the twisting of Smith interesting, you really need to read 1984. The main character's job is to work as a censor for the Ministry of Truth and convince people of absurd things as required by the state...the main cited example in political philosophy is a section where he's changing headlines from past newspapers to reflect "We have always been at war with Eastasia" where they previously spoke of the alliance with Eastasia.

Also, see Orwell's concept of Newsspeak. It's double-plus-good (It's a good thing too because the word "bad" has been eliminated making it hard to foment revolt when all words of criticism have been removed from the language.)

I generally never advocate reading Wikipedia over other sources but its' 1984 article is one of the best I've ever read as a political scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

I can't even guess what that's suppose to mean - can someone explain it?

that cannot exist in the physical world, nor is the physical world inherently evil or even neutral or amoral.
the idea is that god takes the physical world and perfects it, and permits good to live and thrive in it.

adam smith is taking this concept and saying that capitalism takes nature (greed) as it exists and harnesses its power, that would otherwise be evil or neutral at best, in a framework that produces good outcomes on the whole.

more precisely, the idea is that if you set things up properly, the only way greed is rewarded is by doing good. this, in turn, implies that there is a need for plenty of rules and enforcement to ensure that this continues to be the case -- that greed absent doing good cannot be rewarded.

so businesses should be compensated for bringing needed goods to the people, but should not be rewarded for polluting, defrauding, chiseling, and otherwise trying to take more than they deserve.