Adam Smith

[b man]

Was Adam Smith a capitalist? I am trying to read about him, so I figured it would be a good idea to ask you guys...

A lot of people have mentioned him favorably (people that I respect, and would not call capitalists), and have also heard that he influenced in some way Marx and Engels. However, I saw in the room of the economics teacher at our school (I am not in the class) Smith referred to as a capitalist, in contrast (visually compared to) to Marx.

Can someone explain his deal to me?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations at a time of mercantilism. Usually the right-wingers will say that he attacked the "planned economies of his time."

[b man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:40 am
Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations at a time of mercantilism. Usually the right-wingers here will say that he attacked the "planned economies of his time."
Does this make him a capitalist? And are his views in opposition to Marx and Engels'?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by b man+September 18, 2007 06:58 pm--> (b man @ September 18, 2007 06:58 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 01:40 am
Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations at a time of mercantilism. Usually the right-wingers here will say that he attacked the "planned economies of his time."
Does this make him a capitalist? And are his views in opposition to Marx and Engels'? [/b]
That he was a proponent for capitalism against mercantilism does not make him a proper capitalist (ie, owning means of production). As for your second question, he didn't live to see the effects of capitalism (particularly around the economic force known as "economies of scale"), nor did he live to read Marx or Engels (hinting at such EOS being monopoly power). Perhaps he would've gone the way of John Stuart Mill (ie, a rare "utopian socialist thinker" who had a grasp of economic thinking). Then again, he upheld extremely collectivist social values (social conservatism).

[Labor Shall Rule]

I never read Adam Smith, but didn't he envision a society in which everyone would own their own peice of property?

[b man]

Originally posted by Hammer+September 19, 2007 02:15 am--> (Hammer @ September 19, 2007 02:15 am)
Originally posted by b [email protected] 18, 2007 06:58 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 01:40 am
Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations at a time of mercantilism. Usually the right-wingers here will say that he attacked the "planned economies of his time."
Does this make him a capitalist? And are his views in opposition to Marx and Engels'?
That he was a proponent for capitalism against mercantilism does not make him a proper capitalist (ie, owning means of production). As for your second question, he didn't live to see the effects of capitalism (particularly around the economic force known as "economies of scale"), nor did he live to read Marx or Engels (hinting at such EOS being monopoly power). Perhaps he would've gone the way of John Stuart Mill (ie, a rare "utopian socialist thinker" who had a grasp of economic thinking). Then again, he upheld extremely collectivist social values (social conservatism). [/b]
So he was, for lack of a better term, a 'pre-capitalist'? And thus was saved from critique of capitalism on a mass scale?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ All that stuff about "the invisible hand" has a significantly better chance at operating as such under a business environment comprised solely of small businesses (as RedDali said, it's similar to Bush's crap about a "homeowners' society"). What we're seeing today is an hourglass, with all the nice niche businesses doing fine, but keeping to their place to avoid dealing too much with the Big Boys (who only seem competitive to the individual consumer, when I'm certain lots of their suppliers happen to be the same guy, like in the auto industry).

As for "pre-capitalist," my guess is that, were he alive today, he would be as vociferous in his attacks on Big Business as he was against the mercantilist governments (except that his attacks would, alas, be meaningless, even if he were to know that the "invisible hand" stuff was made into poppycock by the historical development).

[And remember that Smith was already witnessing the shedding off of feudal relations, even while attacking the in-between-stages stage known as mercantilism.]

May I point out first that most economic schools of thought (and, alas even many branches of Marxist economics before the wave of accumulation-to-monopoly analysis) base or based most of their economic assumptions on the "perfectly competitive free market" model?

[lombas]

Adam Smith is of course an interesting person. He influenced both Marx and modern libertarians, and the ones who misunderstood his ideas ended up being todays liberals.

His writing is the work of an outright genius. You cannot but deeply respect the intelligence, wit and reason that form the foundation of his thought.

Is he a capitalist? I'd say 'no'. But, like he inspired communism, you can use his work as a foundation of the modern economic thought of libertarians.

Smith is above all 'Smithian'. Like Rand remembered: A is A.

[ComradeOm]

On a basic level Smith is to capitalism what Marx is to communism. Both were philosophers and political economists, their works have spawned plenty of different currents of thought, etc etc, but both laid the theoretical foundations for their respective economic systems. Certainly Smith's influence on Marx cannot be underestimated - the latter was effectively working within a system of classical economics as defined by Smith and his successors.

Smith could be described as capitalist in that he, although not investing capital himself, firmly advocated laissez-faire policies and the "freedom" of the market. His theories are such almost diametrically opposed to those of Marx and socialists in general. Certainly he did not "inspire communism"... unless you count the destruction that the 19th C free market wrought as being inspiring.


Originally posted by Hammer
May I point out first that most economic schools of thought (and, alas even many branches of Marxist economics before the wave of accumulation-to-monopoly analysis) base or based most of their economic assumptions on the "perfectly competitive free market" model?A model which accurately described, in a somewhat less than perfect form, the capitalist economy until the last decades of the 19th C.

[RedStarOverChina]

It's important to realize that today's economic theory has little to do with his.

Smith was, in fact, a brilliant guy.

Like Marx and Ricardo, he perseived people in terms of class, unlike the modern utilitarianist economists, which is a big joke.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by b [email protected] 19, 2007 12:52 am
Was Adam Smith a capitalist?
Yes, he was.


A lot of people have mentioned him favorably (people that I respect, and would not call capitalists), and have also heard that he influenced in some way Marx and Engels.

Smith lived in the XVIII century. There is something called history; you cannot blame Smith for having never traveled by plane, and you cannot also blame him for being a cappie. It was the most advanced thing someone could be at his time.


However, I saw in the room of the economics teacher at our school (I am not in the class) Smith referred to as a capitalist, in contrast (visually compared to) to Marx.


Of course, this is true in many sences. But Marx was also, in another sence, a disciple of Smith, more than the modern Ptolomaic economists, who reject Smith's theory of value. Sensibly speaking, God didn't create the world, capitalism, and communism, just before taking a nap. Those things evolved; their relationship is far more complex than anything that ever crossed the mind of an American XXI century pseudo-libertarian.

Hope this helps.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 08:20 am
But Marx was also, in another sense, a disciple of Smith, more than the modern Ptolomaic economists, who reject Smith's theory of value. Sensibly speaking, God didn't create the world, capitalism, and communism, just before taking a nap. Those things evolved; their relationship is far more complex than anything that ever crossed the mind of an American XXI century pseudo-libertarian.
Ironically, it seems to be that Marx became later on more influenced by Smith while shedding more and more Hegel here and there. ;)

[RedJoey]

Marx was influenced by Smith quite highly. For example, Marx's labour theory of value would not have been possible had Smith not theorised the difference/relationship between value and exchange value. Smith was able to determine that was a "value" however unable to determine where that came from. Therefore any other theories that expand even further such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall had origins in Smiths work.

On a side note, someone was telling me that Smith although believed in the progression from mercantalism to free market capitalism he was quite vocal about its flaws, such as complaining about the uselessness of lawyers. Is there any truth in that?

[praxicoide]

I would say that Marx was influenced more by Ricardo than anyone for his theory of value. He began to study Ricardo more in depth around 1850 because he changed his outlook in the late 1840's from criticizing the market to focusing on production, and as he said, Ricardo was the "economist of production by excellence."