>man agreed with it

>therefore it's correct

yes but why did adam smith agree with it?

because LTV makes economic sense

idc, i don't support adam smith's views

>man agrees with x
>why? because x is correct

not

an

argument

but you said there was no economic basis for marxism because marx wasn't an economicist or whatever but when economicist like adam smith agree with things like LTV it shows there is economic basis of marxism

Any economist would tell you his views originated from Smith's views

Smith is a founder of modern economics

adoring

"NOT AN ARGUMENT."

Wait Adam Smith wasn’t even alive when Karl was around

He died in 1790

but his theories literally are based in LTV

But that’s different you said Smith agreed with him

But they both were supporting LTV

I can agree with a minimum wage. And say that we need the minimum wage to be $500/hour. Economists agree with the fact that there should be a minimum wage.

But that does not mean there is an economic basis to my beliefs

therefore

not

an

argument

and i'm off for now

Please just stop saying not an argument

WTF we weren't even talking about wages and stuff

It makes your argument seem weaker

that makes no sense because Adam Smith and Karl Marx both supported LTV in their strict sense smh

>ukrainian intellect

>fascist coherence

tbh @GermanEastAfrica is a pretty ok fascist

Thanks?

To be honest I find this server to have much more intellectually stimulating discussions than I’a seen elsewhere. When it’s not shit flinging of course

Pretty nice to see fascists debate like civilised persons I must say

my main issue is that idealism is being thrown around in a lazy fashion, idealism in a philosophical sense is quite nuanced tbh.

Most of them

Im going to talk about Aristotle's conception of idealism

Idealism in the Aristotelian sense is that every in the world is imperfect

and that we can imagine a more perfect version of everything in this imperfect world