What are the general opinions on Adam Smith among Austrians? I know that Murray Rothbard held a fairly low opinion of him, but when many people think of laissez-faire capitalism, they think of Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations. Do the people on these forums consider Smith to be a true liberal (in the classical, Enlightenment sense of the word), or do you consider him to be more statist and authoritarian?
Well DiLorenzo seems to like him in How Capitalism Saved America. He seems to think that it all started with him or maybe he didn’t want to get too detailed…I’ve always wondered that.
Mises recommends reading An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Why Read Adam Smith Today?
I think the full title of the work should be emphasized.
I still need to read his The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
If your looking for a more Austrian work from the period, it is worth reading Commerce and Government Considered in Their Mutual Relationship.
I don’t believe either of these terms can be fully leveled against Smith.
I find many scholars tend to misrepresent his work, which is another good reason for a critical read of Smith.
I do enjoy Rothbard’s point of view. Though most of his work was borrowed wit, I think he did make a difference in social evolution.
I encourage anyone to see for themselves.
Smith was a libertarian-leaning conservative. He believed in government and not necessarily in a small one. He’s also seemed to think in terms of ‘nations’ not in terms of individuals. He was statist and authoritarian to a degree.
Smith was a fan of Burke.
When I think of the word “liberal” I think of Adam Smith. He wasn’t a anarchist, but he probably did more intellectually to keep statism in check than anyone else in the 18th century.
I respectfully disagree. He found that individuals in seeking their selfish interests, provide for the whole. When he wrote, the term individualism(coined by Saint-Simonians’) wasn’t in use. Remember he is inquiring into how nations develop their wealth. This was nearly a hundred years before the ‘marginalist revolution’. Étienne de Condillac touched very well on subjective use value during his time. I have read that Turgot was a great influence. Has anyone read any Turgot? If so can you please recommend a work?
Honestly Jaun, I am interested in how you would propose backing this claim.
Not only was there no “individualism”, there was no “capitalism” either. Also, you must keep in mind the book was written for politicians. It is basically a guidebook designed to teach government officials about markets and how not to screw them up (if they want their “nation” to become wealthy).
I read turgot, it’s good to see a fellow fan. Although I know he wrote more I’ve read only one book but it is a good one and in my opinion, much better than wealth of nations for the economic layman and more correct from the austrian point of view called Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth.
PS I also read Theory of Moral Sentiments -pretty good to and you can definitely see where scholars got the whole adam smith problem from.
That is all I have been able to read by Turgot as well, here is a link.
I hope some scholar is trying to gather a collected works.
The t-shirt here says 'Commercial Freedom. I would like to learn more of this thesis by him.
Well, I admit I can’t provide any source right now, but I recall hearing comments on Smith’s position on the relationship between ‘France’ and ‘England’ that would get him classed as a nationalist of sorts. I wasn’t referring to individualism in the economic sphere but in the political/social sphere.
True. But ideas such as natural rights to life liberty and property, and equality before the law, were not new when Smith wrote his books.
Another great work that came out in the same year(1776); which very much makes the case for this is…Common Sense. I would argue that this line of reasoning was enlightening, and seminal for the time. John Locke, and others scratched the surface, but may not have been so boldly clear. I say, there is a strong case that we still haven’t achieved ‘the Age of Reason’. Smith believed in, “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty”.
Perhaps a good conversation on Smith, would be the influence of David Hume, and other thinkers on him. Also, the implications his work had on later thinkers, like Jeremy Bentham, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and on.
Rothbard apparently wrote about Smith as a massive plagiarist that contributed nothing to economics and actually regressed it. He went so far as to say that Smith gave rise to Marx.
You refer to chapter 16 here. {I had no idea about the difference between British and French pin factories.}
I find most of the writing from the time(18th century) to be archaic. I do see a need to read works of the past, whether I agree with them or not, in order to gain an epistemological framework.
I would still like to hear some more learned opinions on how other thinkers were provoked by the influence of Smith.
Marx picked up his labor theory of value from Smith via Ricardo.
And the paradox of value, and the separation of production for use and profit.
The Pre-Austrians
A Rothbard lecture on some Pre-Austrians and some of the British schools.
The entire concept of “plagiarism” is relatively new to Western scholarship.
When did it come about?
- [plagiarism](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=plagiarism) [](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plagiarism)
- 1621, from L. plagiarius "kidnapper, seducer, plunderer," used in the sense of "literary thief" by Martial, from plagium "kidnapping," from plaga "snare, net," from PIE base *p(e)lag- "flat, spread out." Plagiary is attested from 1597.
- I would suggest everyone read Chapter 16 from *An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought*.