Criticisms of the wealth of nations

[jacenskylo]

I was curious if anyone knew of any specific books that criticized The Wealth of nations. I can't find any literature criticizing Smith's work even though I had assumed that communists and socialists would've picked it it apart. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places

[The Disillusionist]

I was curious if anyone knew of any specific books that criticized The Wealth of nations. I can't find any literature criticizing Smith's work even though I had assumed that communists and socialists would've picked it it apart. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places

Communism and Socialism are not necessarily built on the idea that the theories in Wealth of Nations are incorrect. The difference is more of a difference of priority than of theory. Adam Smith defined capitalism, and for the most part, Marxists use the same, or a very similar, definition. They simply view its outcomes much differently. Adam Smith himself had some of the same concerns about capitalism as Marx, though Marx, of course, took them much, much farther. In creating the theory of Communism, Marx wasn't refuting Adam Smith's theory of Capitalism, he was moving beyond it.

[tuwix]

I was curious if anyone knew of any specific books that criticized The Wealth of nations. I can't find any literature criticizing Smith's work even though I had assumed that communists and socialists would've picked it it apart. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places

It wasn't so wrong book. Firstly, Smith recognizes that private property is completely dependent on state. Secondly, there is a sentence that suggests a necessity of progressive taxes. And finally he notices that bourgeoisie has predominant influence on parliament. And it was quite long before Marx...

In terms of economics, he describes a state of things known to him. Then corporations were very rare. Banks quite weak. Paper money were strictly related to gold in 1 to 1 proportion. And in terms of a guide for wealth for nation it was very good. Certainly, for any socialist there is not enough of criticism towards capitalism. But from other side Smith doesn't say idiocies to justify a capitalism known to him. His approach is very scientific. And this is why Marx didn't criticize him very much.

[#FF0000]

Well, Karl Marx's entire point with Capital was to critique the unchallenged underlying assumptions made by "bourgeois economists". It's not at all a specific criticism of Adam Smith or that book in particular, but it's definitely something you should look at.

[jacenskylo]

Wanted to thank everyone for comments and commentary. Definitely give me a lot to think upon as well as reevaluate some of the ideas I've had.