From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 05:45:48 EDT
--- Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote: > 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. ________________________ Andrew, Smith had a sense of what is "natural". That did not mean that it was inevitable. In a similar sense he also used the word "law", by which he did not mean "natural law" as it is used in science. He meant that though the law could be broken or not followed, but if it is broken or not followed, then some adverse effect follows-- something like if you break a criminal law you go to prison and pay a price for it. Similarly with natural development or history--societies have a "natural course of development but that does not mean that societies will necessarily follow it. But when they don't follow it then there are consequences to the welfare of the societies. I think Chris has got Smith quite wrong. Cheers, ajit sinha > > 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 > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 08 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT