Posted on 03/26/2005 5:26:23 AM PST by billorites
WILL THE real Adam Smith stand up, please? There certainly are plenty of phoney versions on parade whenever his name is mentioned.
Some on the Right brazenly saw in Smiths name an authority against much of what he opposed on moral grounds. He was cited to oppose shorter working hours, to continue employing women and children in coal mines and dark satanic mills, even in defence of slavery. Smith allegedly advised against interference in the business of business.
The cries went up - Laissez faire! Leave the mine and mill owners alone! They know best. The invisible hand will come right in the end. Its all in Smiths Wealth of Nations. Interfere at your peril.
Some on the Left naively saw Smith as a compelling authority in favour of state intervention. Wilberforce quoted him against slavery, a practice Smith opposed on moral and economic grounds. Others quoted his support for the government to fund a school in every village so that each child would become literate and numerate. But they did not like his moral sentiments or his political economy.
The distortions of Smiths views have conquered popular discourse. Libertarians on the Right vie with voices on the Left and sling quotations out of context - they long since gave up reading his books.
The distortions began shortly after Smith died in 1790. The bloody excesses of French Terror in 1793 rocked the British establishment. Ten years earlier, the Americans had forced Britain out of its 13 colonies. While the American Republic was far away, the French version was only a few miles from Dover.
A panicky state investigated Smiths friends, searching for evidence that his books were likely to incite British mobs to follow the French example. For his friends it was too close for comfort. Leaders of mobs got 14 years transportation and there was no assurance Smiths supporters would fair better, for social ostracism in their world was as serious as a voyage to Botany Bay.
Adam Smith was a moral philosopher who also wrote about political economy. Over the years economics has become a branch of applied mathematics. Smithian moral sentiments were dumped, along with his political economy. His Wealth of Nations adorns the shelves of academe, safely unread by those who should know better. Like his grave just off the High Street in Edinburgh, his legacy is neglected. Worse, it has been purloined.
Smith never wrote a word about "capitalism", yet he is hailed as the "high priest of capitalism". He is the "father of modern economics" though he would find much in todays economics unrecognisable as his progeny . He is alleged to be an advocate of "Laissez Faire" though he never used these words and claims that he used English equivalents are tenuous. He did not believe it advisable to leave merchants and manufacturers alone, because they were likely to form monopolies, restrict supply and raise prices.
Smith took the long view of societys development. He was never in favour of quick fixes. He considered stability in society more important than correcting even serious deficiencies too quickly. He took a historical view and his books are full of references to classical Greece and Rome and what they taught about government, moral conduct and economic growth, and the need for natural liberty and justice.
The "new" economy he discussed in Wealth of Nations was not new to him. He saw a growing commercial society as a revival of the commerce of western Europe that had been overrun by barbarian hordes. His inquiry into the wealth of nations was like a one-man Royal commission, a tour de force, drawing on evidence over the millennia since the fall of Rome and from contemporary evidence he analysed in painstaking detail.
Commerce was a revival, not a new revolution. From commerce, established on a prosperous and improved agricultural base, opulence would spread deep into society, itself poverty-stricken to a degree we cannot imagine today. Scotland was a backward, ignorant and fractious country; England was slightly better. But both would rise out of their stagnation if commerce was unburdened from the mercantile politics lasting since the Middle Ages.
Smith disapproved of colonies as expensive ways to buy what could be bought in markets. Unnecessary wars to revenge slights on the Kings ministers rather than matters of substance were on a scale of prodigality he railed against. He preferred investment and jobs in productive activity that increased wealth. Not that he was a pacifist. Defence was the "first duty of the government" to protect society from barbaric neighbours.
He saw society as becoming naturally harmonious through the intense dependence of each person on the labour of every other person and taught that the propensity to "truck, barter and exchange" led to people serving their own interests best by serving the interests of others from whom they needed daily necessities.
That is his true legacy, the melding of his moral sentiments with liberty, justice and his economics. It is time his legacy was claimed back.
Gavin Kennedy is a professor at Edinburgh Business School and author of Adam Smiths Lost Legacy, published today by Palgrave Macmillan.
The Left re-writing history once again.
And the sun revolves around the earth.
I mean it sure looks like it doesn't it?
Just read his books by yourself, there is so many bad information available with regard to what he really wrote down.
It must hinder production if you have to stop for regular human sacrifice.
otrl. (on the reading list).
That is exactly it. Not surprising a Scottish leftist would try to spin Adam Smith's words.. as I hear there is a growing ultra-pro capitalist party in Scotland that is gaining popularity fast.
Its blatantly obvious that Scotland's love obsession with government socialism has been a big failure. Compared to the nation's triumphal past as a very wealthy nation of inventors, industrialists and philosophers..
Whereas now they have the dull and souless uniformity of socialism.
I believe Karl Marx coined the word "capitalism" as a derogatory term. Smith died 50+ years before Marx wrote this. So, the good professor's point that Smith didn't write a word about "captialism" is what?
As to women and children working in in coal mines etc., people almost always take the best option available to them. If coal mine work is chosen, the alternative is certainly going to be worse. Only prosperity can get women and children out of the mills and out of the coal mines. And why for pete's sake is this canard still being pulled out of the hat? That was at least 100 years ago.
Why not read
An Inquiry into the nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations;
by ADAM SMITH, LL.D.
EDINBURGH:
1776
It's here
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm
Enjoy
I agree with the author that every economist owns a copy, few have read it, fewer understand it. Economics is a moral study, and there is no room for that in world of "econometrics" that has been substituted for economics.
I know that Pat Buchanan has used Smith's time as a customs collector to advocate the most punitive tariffs imaginable.
The problem is, the deceased are never going to contradict people who are living, and thus able to manipulate their legacy as they see fit.
"...to continue employing women and children in coal mines and dark satanic mills,..."
Well, what do you have to say for yourself? ;~ )
Anti-market clergymen forget Adam Smiths inspriation for his master work:
For thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of the nations like an overflowing stream, and ye shall suck thereof: ye shall be borne upon the side, and shall be dandled upon the knees. JPS isaiah 66:12
I'll bump your bump for later for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.