Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith...socialists?

[swirling_vortex]

Ok, so maybe socialist is a bit of a stretch, but while I was poking around on the internet looking into some things, I came across some quotes that seem to shatter the myth that TJ and AS were die-hard free market capitalists:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." --TJ

"For the general operations of manufacturer, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manner and spirit of a people which preserve a public vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." -- TJ

I've wondered what Jefferson do if he was in Teddy Roosevelt's shoes. His anti-industrialist position may have caused him to take a different view of limited government.

For Adam Smith, you can find them here (http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/2004/12/adam-smith-lying-socialist-weasel.html).

"Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." -- AS

"Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many." --AS

Thoughts?

[jake williams]

They were both delusional and hypocritical, in that they neither understood how capitalism worked in their own time nor how it would continue to inevitably develop. They supported systems that definitely caused and continue to cause a lot of suffering. But they both had streaks of sincerely believing that what they were advocating would lead to a just world.

[CommunityBeliever]

More like delusional capitalist libertarians then socialists they made the same mistake as many people do in thinking that their philosophy can coexist with capitalists which isn't true. Thomas Jefferson may have been the best of the bunch but still most of them are shamelessly bourgeoisie capitalists.

[RGacky3]

Thomas Jefferson was a politician, remember that. Politicians say what they need to say.

[Demogorgon]

Adam Smith must be one of the most misunderstood thinkers in history. Anyone who thinks he calls for unrestrained capitalism or free market fundamentalism has plainly never read him. His work decried mercantilism and proposed a better alternative. It is now outdated and cannot apply to industrial and post industrial society, but it laid the groundwork for what was to follow.

[Nwoye]

they are definitely not socialists. Jefferson however was an abolitionist and repeatedly sympathized with anarchist societies.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Despite the rhetoric of some hard ass faux-libertarians, many of the classical liberals had sympathies that indeed are more socialistic than contemporary politicians would like to believe. I wouldn't call either one a socialist, but they certainly were not proponents of capitalism as, say, Milton Friedman was one.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

They were both delusional and hypocritical, in that they neither understood how capitalism worked in their own time nor how it would continue to inevitably develop. They supported systems that definitely caused and continue to cause a lot of suffering. But they both had streaks of sincerely believing that what they were advocating would lead to a just world.

At the time, capitalism was a progressive force in relation to the global hegemony of (late) feudal production. Even then, both Jefferson and Smith registered concerns about the difference between an ideal state of being and a bourgeoisie-modeled economy. Labeling either one "delusional and hypocritical" is a bit absurd.

Socialism traces some of its heritages to classical liberalism as well. Blindly attacking Adam Smith makes no sense. Now, we could have some choice words for Bastiat..

[Die Neue Zeit]

Gene, did you get to read Michael Hudson's expositions on economic rent and my commentary on them?

[mikelepore]

"Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many." --AS

In that same paragraph, Smith goes on to say that economic inequality is the thing that makes "civil government" necessary -- because without one those five hundred poor people would come and assault the rich person in the middle of the night, etc., but if there were not that inequality then "civil government" would be "not so necessary." An interesting outlook, alongside the Marxian premise that the state is an instrument of the capitalist class.

The text of Adam Smith, _... Wealth of Nations_, at Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-8.txt

[jake williams]

At the time, capitalism was a progressive force in relation to the global hegemony of (late) feudal production. Even then, both Jefferson and Smith registered concerns about the difference between an ideal state of being and a bourgeoisie-modeled economy.

I know.


Labeling either one "delusional and hypocritical" is a bit absurd. Socialism traces some of its heritages to classical liberalism as well. Blindly attacking Adam Smith makes no sense.

I don't think it's a "blind attack". I think it's a fairly measured criticism of people who, however well intentioned, played a major role in developing the ideological mechanisms of liberal capitalism.

[Poby Pobork II]

Both are classic liberals with some of the same sorts of thoughts and affectations common to socialists. Here's another Jefferson quote:

"Another way of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

[IcarusAngel]

Jefferson was actually a staunch racist and made racist statements all throughout his life, and he never freed even his own slaves.

[Nwoye]

Jefferson was actually a staunch racist and made racist statements all throughout his life, and he never freed even his own slaves.
he was genuinely against slavery and never really wanted to own slaves, but his economic circumstances (he was heavily in debt) made that impossible.

I'm not excusing it, but it's worth noting.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Jefferson was actually a staunch racist and made racist statements all throughout his life, and he never freed even his own slaves.

His racism was more apparent in an espoused distrust of Native Americans than blacks, but like Sedrox pointed out, the circumstances around Jefferson placed him in a conflicting scenario where he recognized slavery's objective dichotomy with freedom - yet freeing slaves meant he would end up in debtor's prison. Surely not one person here can truthfully say they've remained absolutely virgin to hypocrisy.

Attacking politicians from the 18th century for racist beliefs is also a little absurd, unless done in context. Let's not forget many socialists much later on were racist - Bakunin comes to mind. However, I don't defer all character flaws onto proponents of social anarchism knowing the circumstances of their beliefs. With the possible exception of Marx (if he quantified Judaism the religion versus Judaism as an ethnicity), I'm not aware of any 19th century theorist who would avoid restriction on RevLeft.

Ideological purists hell bent on attacking anything American are killing the left. If we want to grow our base, we need to point out that socialist tendencies are indeed routed in classical American ideals. The "Right" has no legitimate monopoly over our country's historical roots. Jefferson and Paine in particular were quite alarmed at what capitalism was becoming. Hell, on a "bad day," Paine was a modern day social democrat.

[fabilius]

Gene, did you get to read Michael Hudson's expositions on economic rent and my commentary on them?

I must admit I haven´t read Adam Smith.

But I´ve read Michael Hudson, and according to him it seems both Adam Smith and Karl Marx wanted workers to control the means of production. Adam Smith believed that when mercantilism would be replaced by his economic ideas this would occur naturally. Adam Smith imagined that under capitalism more and more wealth would be transferred over to those who worked hard.

A generation later Marx was able to see Adam Smith was wrong. Who knows what Adam Smith would have thought had he been born a generation later?

They were both free thinkers, but obviously I agree more with Marx whom I have actually read. (Although not as well as I should).

Anyway, Hudson has made me want to read Adam Smith, mostly to judge for myself, whether indeed Adam Smith was as progressive as he claims.

[trivas7]

To the extent they both were statists, they were socialists.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ironic statement considering the two of them and Paine acknowledged property and government are both the root causes of political ill in the world, and that the primary function of government has been defense of property. Seems like they acknowledged statism and capitalism go hand in hand through the course of their works. A much more enlightening position than an Austrian one-liner.

[fabilius]

To the extent they both were statists, they were socialists.

Statist doesn´t equal socialist.

[trivas7]

Statist doesn´t equal socialist.
But all socialists are de facto statists. What but a state can successfully oppose private property?

[Robert]

A mob.