The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena. 

While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was: 

"When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the multitude in no respect better than any other in it" (pg. 187 in my book)

It seems like the sense of justice, remorse, and merit that we feel is as a result of us viewing ourselves and our actions from the perspective of others. In doing so we stifle this natural tendency towards "self-love" that Smith identifies and equalize ourselves to everyone by subjecting our actions to their judgements. It reminds me of Kantian ethics because the end result is a view in which everyone is equal in worth. Further Smith seems to be invoke some idea of a good will- a central Kantian concept- in his theory as he refers to a "proper motive" multiple times. 

Considering all of this, how did he get to Capitalism.... 

Comments

  1. RukminiMarch 31, 2022 at 2:04 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RukminiMarch 31, 2022 at 2:08 AM

      sorry I'm reposting so I can fix my grammar mistakes lmaoo

      This was something that also crossed my mind as I was reading Smith. His section on hierarchy and class seemed to imply that Smith disliked the way that class caused for our natural mechanisms of sympathy to no longer function as they should. This suggests that class, which is caused by discrepancies in material condition, is the issue.

      Discrepancies in material conditions only occur due to the rampant accumulation of wealth that is allowed under capitalism. I think for Smith, because when people participate in markets to earn money, they are providing products that people want. This ensures that both parties benefit - making it a social passion. You do not have to chose who you believe was justified in the interaction because both parties benefit. I think modern capitalism, to Smith, would be antithetical to some of his ideas, because modern capitalism has hierarchies that are so entrenched that it caues our natural mechanisms for sympathy to be distorted. Companies also do not have to provide services people want because monopolies and trusts ensure that corporations can afford to provide skewed prices that only benefit them and not people/others in the market. Thus it seems like you could argue that the market has become an unsocial passion. Smith's ideas kind of just seem like a beast that sort of grew untamed and out of hand and then became the very thing he did not want to see.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more