TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

indoctrination, I noticed something interesting.

So an interesting coincidence came across me today

i was reading a Noam Chomsky article where he talks about how Adam Smiths philosophy has been butchered by the Chicago school of economics.


There are similarities between Karl Marx and Adam Smith between their philosophy on the division of labor. This seems to have been forgotten

Adam Smiths thoughts


page 4 2b) Karl Marx's thoughts

I just found it interesting that in this talk, Dan Ariely didn't notice that Adam Smith also had similar meaning to Karl Marx.

To me this sort of shows how massive the level of indoctrination and twisting of history has twisted today's society. It's even affected our intellectuals.

What are your thoughts?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 11 2013: Ignore anything Chomsky says he is very confusing and IMO not useful but a liability.

    I followed the link below your link to Adam Smith, this one:


    Skip down to where Rothbard talks about the Division of Labor. I don't have time to read all of it right now but this should get you going the right direction.

    I learned something after listening to Nail Ferguson I thought Smith was a God, Thanks.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Hi Pat,

      Many thanks for the link.. there are some good points there .. a lot of opinion, but the thought process is useful.

      I disagree with both Marx and Smith on the point of the affect of meaningless repetitive labour tasks. Although it seems reasonable to assume that such labour will cause the mind to atrophy, it would take some empirical research to prove - a thing quite easy to do these days with FMRI technology. We have, for instance, found that the hippocampus will shrink with habitual use of navigation aids such as GPS units.
      From personal experience, I found that mind-numbingly repetitive tasks actually freed my mind to explore ideas while the body was busy at mechanical work .. although this is anecdotal, it may lead to a better understanding that the Enlightenment thinkers failed to address - the assumption is that the mind was already prepared to think independently of the body .. this may not be the case for everybody. One has to ask - what went before? How is it some are crushed by repetitive work, while others are not? And why were Smith and Marx lead to believe the assumption that all would be crushed?

      Have you any published work yourself? It would be great to explore your over-all theory in detail.
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: A little context, Robard talks about plagiarizing, the truth is ideas have sex, so no one is completely original. But the importance of the service differential concept cannot be overstated. This alone solves the mind numbing work problem. The guy who cannot stand it gets himself educated to do something else, or he automates the process, or because of the service differential he figures out a way to trade with someone else through a mutually beneficial arrangement. This is the very process that has raised the standard of living of the world. Robard mentions that Smith did not apply this to foreign trade, major oversight.

        I'm glad I read this as I like everyone else thought Smith was the father of economics where Robard shed some light on this for me.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2013: Yes, attribution is a fuzzy area. Smith gets the gurnsey because he articulated the ideas of his time - in the right arena for personal recognition .. whether or not he enjoyed it.. well, Jimi Hendrix was not around to enjoy the bulk of his attribution.
          Also - the principle of service differential is obvious - when you see it done. The idea extrapolates into the incredible power of a free market.
          The question of externalities is yet to be properly understood - this is the great failure of writers such as Smith, Keynes, Marx etc - and I suppose that, as you say, ideas have sex, this aspect will, in turn, fall to the children of ideas in the generation appointed to them.

          The other notion that snags my curiosity is the incentive role of attribution .. we attribute prestige even though it is obvious that each breakthrough depends on the breakthroughs before it - and that many get the same idea at the same time. The practice and the reality are in conflict - and yet, no one would listen to me saying that the works of Hendrix were derivative .. though, I'd be hard pressed to argue that he was not unique.
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: Why are the practice and the reality in conflict?
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2013: That's the million dollar question.

          I'd be guessing, but it seems that the need for recognition from the point of view of the contributor is a function of the gregarious drive of the social animal .. Just what is at the heart of this gregarious drive .. I haven't found any empirical study .. Somewhere in there will be our answer.
          The rational point of view is as you stated - ideas have sex ... and they are markedly promiscuous .. Galileo's telescope was a twin-child born from him and another guy, who's name we don't remember. James Watt did not invent the steam engine alone - he was the one who was awarded the patent. .. Of course, these examples are more folk-lore than reality .. but they get used to illustrate what happens all the time. In microcosm, we larf when 2 friends say the exact same thing in conversation. What Jung called "synchronicity".
          So the need to own one's expressions .. I'd say is connected with the sense of security derived by our perceived value to others - right or wrong .. we seem to be wired that way.

          What's your take?
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: I guess it is the difference between interesting and interested the line that is crossed when one start believing his own PR.

        The one who makes the clam gets the reward. So there is benefit to being good at promotion which gives Edison the brass ring with poorer technology over Tesla.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2013: Hi Pat,

          I appreciate your insight!

          PR is the art of working belief systems. Indeed, the gap between rationality and actuality in people lies in the noise-component of our perceptions.
          I'll think some more on this.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.