| oking te Books (
Gordon
Brown grew up in the Scottish seaside town of Kirkcaldy where his
father was a minister in one of the local kirks. Adam Smith was born
there in 1723, though his father was a customs official. In February,
at Brown’s invitation, Alan Greenspan,
chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board, visited Kirkcaldy to
deliver a lecture on Adam Smith.
Smith’s
Wealth of Nations was, said Greenspan, “one
of the great achievements in human intellectual history”.
Smith’s view that capitalists should be
allowed by governments to pursue profits unhindered since, “led
by an invisible hand”, this resulted in
the “public good”
being promoted had, he argued, became “the
sole remaining effective paradigm for economic organisation”
(Times, 7 February).
That’s
the side of Smith that is promoted by free-marketeers such as the
Adam Smith Institute. But that’s only one
side of his theories. Do the free-marketeers –
does Greenspan – know that the Wealth
of Nations opens with a declaration that useful things are
produced by labour: “The annual labour of
every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the
necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes”?
Or that Smith went on to expound a labour theory of value: “Labour
is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities”
(Book I, chapter V)?
Smith
even went so far as to identify profits as deriving from the value
added by workers in the process of production:
“As
soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons,
some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work industrious
people, whom they will supply with materials and subsistence, in
order to make a profit by the sale of their work, or by what their
labour adds to the value of the materials . . . The value which the
workmen add to the materials . . . resolves itself . . . into two
parts, of which one pays their wages, the other the profits of their
employer upon the whole stock of materials and wages which he
advanced” (Book I, chapter VI).
Smith’s
labour theory of value was refined by David Ricardo and used by early
critics of capitalism to argue that the capitalists were exploiters
who robbed the workers of a part of the product of their labour. Marx
took over and further developed this labour theory of value as the
basis for his analysis of capitalism which saw the capitalists’
pursuit of profit as seeking to extract a maximum of unpaid labour
from the working class.
The “public good”
which Smith argued was promoted by letting capitalists pursue profits
was an increase in the total amount of wealth in existence. Marx
didn’t deny this, but argued that under
capitalism this increase was inevitably unevenly divided: more went
to capitalists as accumulated capital than to the actual
wealth-producers as increased wages (if that).
What Smith’s “invisible
hand”
did, if you like, was to build-up in this way the material basis for
a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control. Which
is the “sole effective paradigm”
for ensuring that the productive forces built up under capitalism can
be used for the benefit of all.
Next Page 10
Contents Page
The
Socialist Party
|