All this revolves around Smith's four stages -- hunting and gathering, herding, agriculture, and then commerce. In the earlier stages, passions play a big role. Even in agriculture, the role of passions is diminished.
The aristocracy personify passions, but they don't really fit into his four-stage set up. They're presumably superfluous. In the commercial stage, Smith suggests that all social relations could be like those among merchants. He is against charismatic behavior. I discussed much of this in more detail in the Invention of Capitalism. On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:43:35PM -0400, s.artesian wrote: > I understand that, but Smith is wrong, particularly where he > states: "He makes this change in the "passions" dominant in > agriculture a significant contributor to "the improvement and > cultivation of the country." That change in passions requires > is a change in class; and the economic, property, social > change precedes that. > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Ted Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: May 16, 2007 11:48 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] I say po-tay-to, you say po-tah-to > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
