Re: [OPE-L] Hegel's and Smith's historical materialism?

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 06:19:47 EDT


At 10:22 +0100 7-10-2005, Andrew Brown wrote:

>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.

I would rather say that if one reads ALL Smith's 
WN, the capitalist order is a likely chance, and 
definitely there can be better capitalisms than 
the Manchesterian one, and that the only 
justification for capitalism is that the 
invisible hand produces the bettering of workers 
condition, changing the beggars in labouring 
poors, and less poor as long as competition 
regulates entrepreneurs and pushes up the real 
wage.

hence, there was an history before, there is an 
alternative possible history somewhere else, and 
yes capitalism is justified as long as it drives 
up employment and wages.

it would be nice if it would be not a piece of fiction

r
--
Riccardo Bellofiore
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
"Hyman P. Minsky"
UniversitÓ di Bergamo
Via dei Caniana 2
I-24127 Bergamo, Italy
e-mail:   riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it
direct    +39-035-2052545
secretary    +39-035 2052501
fax:      +39 035 2052549
homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 08 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT