From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 07:49:39 EDT
Andy and Ajit I was thinking of the last 2 paras of WN Bk III ch 1. Chris >Chris, > >You seem to be saying that Smith was both materialist and historical but >admitted he had the wrong history. Probably requires a bit of >elaboration. > >I'd suggest Smith and classical political economy were certainly >materialist (they had classes based on production, they introduce the >LTV) but not really historical because capitalist classes are taken as >natural and 'history' merely a set of aberrations prior to the natural >(capitalist) order. > >Simon Clarke (Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology) is interesting on >this (and on Hegel and on parallels between Hegel and CPE from Marx's >perspective) > >Andy > >-----Original Message----- >From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher >Arthur >Sent: 06 October 2005 21:41 >To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Hegel's and Smith's historical materialism? > >>Am I off-track here? Did Smith have a historical materialist >>perspective? Did Hegel? >> >>In solidarity, Jerry > >No. >Smith gives a theory of history going from agriculture to the twons to >foreign trade and then ruefully admits the real development was exactly >the >opposite! >For a study of Hegel's early work see my chapter on him in my book 'The >New >Dialectic and Marx's Capital' It is true he gives more importancce to >labour in the early work but it is still in the interests of the spirit. >Chris > >17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 10 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT