> what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes
What a weird test. No system of government does, and Marx was not writing a system of government. I guess it is time to throw out all political theory, though.
> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription
Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it.
> means doing your own thinking
...Which apparently can only lead to your conclusion? That's hilarious.
I’m surprised you don’t think it’s important for power to be accountable. It’s ok if you don’t, but I think limiting the power of tyrants is an important political principle.
>> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription
> Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it.
Who said it should all be discarded? It seems like you might be remembering a past argument with someone else.
I think it’s more that you simply don’t have a good response to the points, and making an accusation of bad faith is a cheap way for you to avoid facing that.
I’m not making anything up. Let’s take a look at what you wrote:
Me:
> what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes
You:
>> What a weird test. No system of government does
There is no difference between limiting the effects of the machinations of assholes, and holding power to account.
What a weird test. No system of government does, and Marx was not writing a system of government. I guess it is time to throw out all political theory, though.
> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription
Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it.
> means doing your own thinking
...Which apparently can only lead to your conclusion? That's hilarious.
> and not fetishizing
I'm not the one with the fetish here.