From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 04:58:30 EDT
Chris, Those two paragraphs actually confirm my position. If you look at the bottom of the paragraph 4, just a page before the last two paragraphs, Smith writes: "Had human institutions, therefore, never disturbed the natural course of things, the progressive wealth and increase of the towns would, in every political society, be consequential, and in proportion to the improvement and cultivation of the territory and country." The last paragraph is just a lamentation that human agency in most of the Western countries have interfered with the natural order given that the merchants and the manufacturers have been closer to the political power. Actually, on my reading, Adam Smith is highly physiocratic both in theory as well as in basic attitude towards agriculture. It is a few centuries of British writings on Smith that has laboriously tried to suppress this aspect of Smith to claim some sort of originality for the British. I'm not interested in the controversy whether Smith had developed his ideas before he came in contact with the Physiocrates--he might have developed the idea of the virtue of free trade on his own, but the fact remains that his thinking in the Wealth of Nations is highly physiocratic. Cheers, ajit sinha --- Christopher Arthur <arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM> wrote: > 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 > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 10 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT