RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I agree that characterization of Smith as populist seems peculiar to me. That said, I think many other characterizations of Smith are also wrong. Advocating markets in the 18th c., when the fetters of euro-feudal life were still in force strongly, and advocating markets in the late 20th c., are two very different things. But I understand that Max is interested in characterizations of Nader and not Smith, though his crack about 'dead economists' misses the point that many of us are interested in the writers of the past because we believe the issues they raised, and even debates about how we are to understand them, are relevant to the current political economy. I'm not interested in history of thought like admiring antique furniture or whatever--I'm interested in the ideas, and unlike most economists today I don't assume that whatever is more recent is better. Mat -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24586] RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs > Unfortunatetly, quoting of the "butcher and baker" passage out of > context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite > Gordon "Greed is Good" Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as > an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . .
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
The observation about the populist theme of "the many and the few,"
in contrast to class, is accurate. So much the worse for hackneyed
class analysis. ("Workers and peasants of the Bronx!")
The way the Pops chose to 'unrig' the market included a) nationalizing
the railroads; b) co-ops allowing farmers to band together in buying
supplies and selling their output; and c) a new monetary system to
replace the extant chaos of private banks. Laying this to Adam
Smith is quite a stretch, sort of like looking for crucifixion
symbolism in Hemingway. -- mbs
>
> the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century
> Populist movement was one of the "little guys" against the power of the
> elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were
> rigging the market against the "little guys." This suggests that
> the markets
> needed to be "unrigged" rather replaced by something different and better.
> That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with
> the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas).
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
Michael Perelman writes:>I would say, Max, that while Smith may not approve of the populists, the populists saw themselves as in line with a Smithian interpretation of the world.< the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century Populist movement was one of the "little guys" against the power of the elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were rigging the market against the "little guys." This suggests that the markets needed to be "unrigged" rather replaced by something different and better. That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas). (Populism generally means a conflict between the mass of "little guys" against the elite, rather than a battle between classes or to end class domination.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I would say, Max, that while Smith may not approve of the populists, the populists saw themselves as in line with a Smithian interpretation of the world. On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:30:26PM -0500, Max Sawicky wrote: > I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, > but the context of this discussion was whether Nader > and populists were more like Smith than not. > My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the > contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought > can find any contact with the basic thrust of political > populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring > or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing > theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. > We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging > current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead > economists. > > mbs > > > > Unfortunatetly, quoting of the "butcher and baker" passage out of > > context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite > > Gordon "Greed is Good" Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as > > an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . . > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs > Unfortunatetly, quoting of the "butcher and baker" passage out of > context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite > Gordon "Greed is Good" Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as > an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . .
RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
Unfortunatetly, quoting of the "butcher and baker" passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon "Greed is Good" Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. A. L. Macfie's The Individual in Society (and his and other's work in the modern school of Scottish Political Economy, such as D. D. Raphael, Andrew Skinner, Ronald Meek) and also Heilbroner's papers "The Paradox of Progress" and especially "The Socialization of the Individual in Adam Smith" are good antidotes for this. Of course, so is reading The Wealth of Nations with Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and Lectures on Jurispridence! Now, there is no doubt that in the TMS, Smith explicitly criticized those who view self-interest as the source of all 'affections and sentiments' as suffering from 'some confused misapprehension of the system of sympathy.' And that, for Smith, 'sympathy' (what we today call empathy) is the "effective cement of society". So, if one argues that self-interest is the prime motivator for Smith in the WN, then they must be arguing for the old 'Das Adam Smith problem'--that the two works are inconsistent. There is now widespread general agreement that the view that Smith "changed his mind" between the two works and the two works are inconsistent has little evidence to support it. Macfie, argues that when Smith's notion of empathy is combined with the reason of the 'impartial spectator' (something like 'conscience'), the result is a "rational sympathy" (or "sympathetic reason"), from which arise the social codes and rules of behavior necessary if "*proper* self regard" is to benefit the community. The analysis goes on... The upshot is that self-interested behavior *may* result in socially desirable outcomes *if* it is moderated by self-control and socially responsible adherence to other social rules and codes of behavior (Smith's 'self-command' and 'sense of duty'). Thus, the _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ lays out the institutional framework necessary for a 'society of perfect liberty' (not to be confused with perfect competition) and the _Wealth of Nations_ assumes that framework in its discussion of the 'self-interested' economic actor. In Heilbroner's terms, TMS is about the 'socialization of the individual' and WN is about the consequences of socialized individual action within the institutional framework of a 'society of perfect liberty'. Excessive greed is socially undesirable. As a NY Times piece put it a couple years ago, "Adam Smith ain't no Gordon Gekko." -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24575] RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left "But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." > > "The sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are thus erected into > political maxims for the conduct of a great empire." > > "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment > and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against > the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is > impossible to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could > be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But > though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from > assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such > assemblies." > > >
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
"But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." > > "The sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are thus erected into > political maxims for the conduct of a great empire." > > "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment > and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against > the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is > impossible to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could > be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But > though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from > assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such > assemblies." > > >
Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
- Original Message - From: "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 9:05 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24527] RE: Re: We are what's left > I agree with the thrust of this, Max. You have to be pretty pure and > very lonely to be a proper lefty by some lights. But, I'd argue that > Smith reckoned the good social effects would only come if the > self-seeking business fraternity were very closely watched by state > agencies, else they'd nefariously combine towards bad social effects. I > > mbs: quite right. > > have heard such sentiments from Nader in the past. Now he's saying the > state agencies are nefariously combining with the self-seeking > businessmen, isn't he? That pretty well matches Jim Devine's recent > musings on the state, as I recall. And Jim's plenty left for me. > Cheers, > Rob. > > mbs: Nader's focus is not on the state but on the political > parties which run the state, which is the right one IMO. The problem with that focus is that it assumes the state, as a *dang in sich*, has sufficient neutralizing constraints on how political parties can manipulate the institutional structure for rent seeking purposes. The moment we see the form of the State and it's appuratuses as *products* of rent seeking behavior by political parties and their financiers and to a much lesser extent other factions, the bias in the constitutional form of the State becomes evident. An incorruptible and neutral State is an impossibility and, as Warren Samuels and Steven Medema have pointed out tirelessly, the very existence of the State creates the opportunities for rents. Hence, the Right's incessant call for the minimalist state. Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule" lays it all out brilliantly. Ian
Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
"The sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are thus erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire." "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
> > >I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the > >good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. > >I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists > >or in Nader's movement. > > > >Smith would not accept this characterization, as you perfectly well know. >jks > >>Come again? What vileness are you accusing me of now? > Mere error, nothing vile. You know that Smith had a very nuanced view of self-seeking behavior, wrote a whole book, called Theory of the Moral Sentiments, about how to be good, and even The Wealth of Nations, you find sharp regular denunciations of greed and self-seeking that, apart from the style, could have been written by Marx. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: We are what's left
Max, I agree with your characterization of Smith. I see the populists as being like the Ricardian socialists in England in the mid 19th Century. In both cases, they saw themselves as believing in markets. Regulations were required to undue the damage created by people or corporations that were not playing fair. They did not see their demands as being opposed to markets at all. They just wanted to make markets work fairly. "Max B. Sawicky" wrote: > > mbs: Nader's focus is not on the state but on the political > parties which run the state, which is the right one IMO. > > The distinction from Smith is that Smith expects a great deal > of social good to come from competitive markets (to be sure, > with a limited state to enforce contracts and the like), > whereas populists expect a great need for remedies to > markets from the state, acting in the name of "the whole people." > You could say populists, not being marxists, saw markets as > something sullied by outside forces -- monopolists, sharp > operators, etc. -- but that is not the thing as being > deluded as to the possibility of marked-based economic > justice. > > mbs -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: We are what's left
I agree with the thrust of this, Max. You have to be pretty pure and very lonely to be a proper lefty by some lights. But, I'd argue that Smith reckoned the good social effects would only come if the self-seeking business fraternity were very closely watched by state agencies, else they'd nefariously combine towards bad social effects. I mbs: quite right. have heard such sentiments from Nader in the past. Now he's saying the state agencies are nefariously combining with the self-seeking businessmen, isn't he? That pretty well matches Jim Devine's recent musings on the state, as I recall. And Jim's plenty left for me. Cheers, Rob. mbs: Nader's focus is not on the state but on the political parties which run the state, which is the right one IMO. The distinction from Smith is that Smith expects a great deal of social good to come from competitive markets (to be sure, with a limited state to enforce contracts and the like), whereas populists expect a great need for remedies to markets from the state, acting in the name of "the whole people." You could say populists, not being marxists, saw markets as something sullied by outside forces -- monopolists, sharp operators, etc. -- but that is not the thing as being deluded as to the possibility of marked-based economic justice. mbs
RE: Re: We are what's left
>I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the >good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. >I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists >or in Nader's movement. > Smith would not accept this characterization, as you perfectly well know. jks Come again? What vileness are you accusing me of now? mbs
RE: We are what's left
Does Ralph Nader oppose capitalism? -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24496] We are what's left Yesterday I learned that Nader, who draws thousands of people to his rallies to hear him and others rail against corporations, globalization, Republicans, and Democrats, and in support of industrial action, labor rights, regulation, and the welfare state is not a leftist.
Re: We are what's left
> >I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the >good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. >I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists >or in Nader's movement. > Smith would not accept this characterization, as you perfectly well know. jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: We are what's left
Max, I like Nader. I admire him very much. His main refrain is corporate and government abuse -- people not playing fairly. He is not dogmatic, but that is his central line. That does not mean that he would not support labor rights and the welfare state. I would have expected that you, who probably know as much about the populists as anybody on the list, would have agreed with that characterization. On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:53:37AM -0500, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > "Ralph Nader is not a leftist. I doubt that he would call himself a > leftist. Is much more in line with the old populists, who believe in the > theory of Adam Smith . . . " > > Thank god for PEN-L. You learn something every day here. > > Yesterday I learned that Nader, who draws thousands of people > to his rallies to hear him and others rail against corporations, > globalization, Republicans, and Democrats, and in support of > industrial action, labor rights, regulation, and the welfare state > is not a leftist. > > Presumably that leaves just PEN-L and Looey. Overnight, the ranks > of the left have been depleted by 99 percent. Oh, the humanity!!! > > I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the > good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. > I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists > or in Nader's movement. > > mbs > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: We are what's left
Rob writes:>Jim's plenty left for me. < thanks. BTW, there was a recent effort to pin down the extremely vagud left/right metaphor by a couple of political scientists (I don't remember their names, but it was reported by SLATE magazine and by Paul Krugman). Their project was to draw a "map" in which U.S. senators who voted in similar ways were close together in space (the way Perth and Brisbane seem to be close together for those of us who've never been down under). Surprisingly, there are only two dimensions to their "map." "Up vs. down" in U.S. politics refers to civil rights issues, while "left" vs. "right" is about class and inequality. The former dimension has become less important over time, say these folks, but the latter still works. One of my senators (Barbara Boxer) ends up on the extreme left, which may say something about the limits of this research. More importantly to me, it seems that the meaning of "the middle" changes over time. JD
Re: We are what's left
G'day Max, > I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the > good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. > I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists > or in Nader's movement. I agree with the thrust of this, Max. You have to be pretty pure and very lonely to be a proper lefty by some lights. But, I'd argue that Smith reckoned the good social effects would only come if the self-seeking business fraternity were very closely watched by state agencies, else they'd nefariously combine towards bad social effects. I have heard such sentiments from Nader in the past. Now he's saying the state agencies are nefariously combining with the self-seeking businessmen, isn't he? That pretty well matches Jim Devine's recent musings on the state, as I recall. And Jim's plenty left for me. Cheers, Rob.
