[garric]

It's fine to read these for the literature and/or a peek into how earlier people saw their world, but beware of ideas whose underpinnings are still touted as fact - such as those from the Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith may have been among the intelligentsia of his time, but he made claims far outside of his expertise which have long since been shown to be fantastical imaginings. And if you've ever seen A Christmas Carol, you'll have passing familiarity with the debtor prisons and Irish potato famines justified by classical liberalism (economic theory, not to be confused with the popular modern term) which has today become neoliberalism (which contains justification for neoconservatism, so let's not get partisan about it) since about 1980 with Reagan in the USA, Thatcher in the UK, and Deng in China and isn't any better for reasons I won't currently go in to. (Crosby, Harvey)

For instance, Adam Smith argued that barter was an inefficient way to make transactions because it required a dual coincidence of wants by both parties. Nevermind that communities simply didn't function this way, instead giving what they had now in a system of credit rather than debt. This is one of many examples undermining Smith's ideas, so be careful if you decide to read such books. Unless your degree concerns historiography, your time would be much better spent elsewhere. (Graeber)

Smith is easy to debunk, but ideas contained within many classical novels provide popular justification for cultural imperialism. They're not so easy to address. (Said)

[WoodenChair]

There was absolutely no need to inject such politics into a seemingly innocent post about a collection of old books. Your topic sentence claimed that you disputed the wisdom of old classics (notice the plural) but really your extended post was a diatribe against The Wealth of Nations and classical free market economics. Save your politics for a political topic.

[dbcooper]

I really need an extension that hides any post or article that uses the terms neoliberal or neoliberalism.

[ternaryoperator]

Why be a minimalist? How about one that hides anything to do with politics.

[JackFr]

I would suggest a charitable reading of the Wealth of Nations on its own terms, rather than focusing on narrow Marxist critiques of it. Further, I would suggest reading Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiment for a fuller understanding of his ideas.

[SixSigma]

Justifying bad things with a book is not the same as the book advocating bad things.

I suspect you haven't even read it because Smith gives specific warnings in the text as to where the ideas can come into conflict with social benefit, proposing limits on payable interest for instance.

[garric]

I didn't say the bad things were done on purpose (when is that ever the case?) and didn't mean to ever suggest such a thing. And I understand your suspicions, but I've read more than just The Wealth of Nations by Smith.

The other comments are such a trainwreck of assumptions that it's not worthwhile to respond, so you've got that going for you.

[mcguire]

garric does have a point. Reading The Origin of Species is a fine and dandy thing, but you shouldn't expect to learn too much relevant to modern biology.

[devindotcom]

If you're reading Darwin as a biology textbook, you're blowing it from the start, though. It's much more valuable as a primary document in the history of biology. That and from what I understand, it's pretty interesting reading.

[garric]

Yep! This is why I said it'd be more relevant for historiographers.