From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 21:24:17 EDT
> Hi Dogan, Emma Rothschild's book on Smith and Condorcet has been widely praised. Do you have comments on it. Congratulations on the forthcoming book. Yours, Rakesh > > A short description of my forthcoming (December 2006) book by I. B. > Tauris. > Dogan > About the book > This is the first scholarly work to deal solely with the Adam Smith > problem, > namely the apparent contradiction between Adam Smith's most famous works, > "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "The Nature and Causes of the Wealth > of > Nations". Since the 1840s scholars have puzzled over and attempted to > explain > the fact that these works offer two fundamentally different and > contradictory > concepts of human nature. In this radical new approach Do an Gocmen > argues > that there are, indeed, two different concepts of human nature; in "The > Theory > of Moral Sentiments", Smith advocates a broad synchronization of human > intention and behaviour under a beneficent providence in a system of > mutual > sympathy, whereas "Wealth of Nations" is a critical account of the human > situation > of the individual and is an egoistic description of human beings in > commercial > society. Gocmen argues that Smith does indeed put forward two different > and > varied ideas, arguing that the ethical position articulated in "The > Theory of > Moral Sentiments" can be, and was intended by Smith to be, applied as a > basis for criticising the commercial society analysed in the "Wealth of > Nations".;Gocmen argues that this ethical position points to the > character of its > ideal future replacement, that of Adam Smith's Utopia. Gocmen therefore > dismisses > as short-sighted and oversimple the common assumption that Adam Smith's > Utopia consists merely of 'the invisible hand', the idea that markets > would > regulate everything if left to their own dynamics. This book challenges > the > traditional approach to Adam Smith and is the first contribution to the > solution of > a long-standing debate, making it essential reading for anyone wanting to > understand the moral philosophy, political economy and utopian thought of > Adam > Smith. > > > In einer eMail vom 21.10.2006 20:35:14 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt > sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM: > > --- Dogan Goecmen <Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM> wrote: > >> >> Hi Ajit, thank you very much for your questions. >> >> By 'market in itself' I mean that we can develop an >> objective understanding >> of market independently from what all sorts of >> ideologies say about and >> ascribe to it. I mean the question we have to pose >> is this: what is the nature of >> market. Based on this objective grasp we can then >> judge about these ideologies >> whether they are right or wrong. Market is an >> institution where humans get >> in touch with one another for a certain purpose: >> the exchange of commodities. >> That is to say that human relations on market are >> mediated by commodities - >> either directly or indirectly by means of money. >> So, the question what is the >> nature of market changes into the question what is >> the nature of commodity >> and money.The analysis of commodity and money must >> then be analysed in terms of >> human relation because commodities are being >> exchanged by human beings. >> These questions are profoundly posed and analysed, >> I think, in the first Chapter >> of the Capital of Marx. This is my reply to your >> two questions in short. >> Thanks again. > ______________________ > Thanks for your reply. As you must know Adam Smith > considered market as part of the sphere of free > speech. When a buyer or a seller offers to buy or sell > something at a price, he or she is simultaneously > putting forward an argument to convince the other > party of why it is in his or her advantage to buy or > sell that commodity at that price. It is part of the > whole enlightenment program. So I was expecting a > little more on market than you have given and again to > say that "These questions are profoundly posed and > analysed, I think, in the first Chapter of the Capital > of Marx." is not an answer to the question, why do > you think that CAPITAL ch.1 has the best analysis of > it? But I can see you have your plate full and you > need not feel obliged to answer my questions. Cheers, > ajit sinha > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST