Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:38:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin_Schwartz-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: M-INTRO: Reading Capital


> 
> On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 December-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:
> 
> > In reading Marx's Capital, I have learned that Capital is not a book 
> > pushing socialism, but an insightful criticism of capitalism.  Indeed, 
> > Marx often turns to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to support his claims.
> 
> Well, it is a book "pushing" socialism. It is also a critique of
> capitalism. H thinks that socialism can do better than capitalism.
> 
> > 
> > I understand that Marx is at odds with capitalism, yet he seems to have 
> > an abiding respect for Adam Smith.  How did Marx feel about Adam Smith 
> > and his book?  Furthermore, was the Wealth of Nations a catalyst for Marx 
> > in developing his own ideas on economics?  If not, what was?
> 
> Marx distinguishes between two kinds of bourgeois economists. People like
> Smith and David Ricardo he thought were serious scientists trying to
> actually understand how capitalism worked. He has a lot od respect for
> them and learned a lot from them, although he criticizes their views. He
> thought that Ricardo was better, analytically, than Smith. (He was right.)
> The other sort of bourgeois economist he calls "vulgar," and thsi sort he
> has no respect for. People like Thomas Malthus are in Marx's view just
> doing crude propaganda instead of serious analysis. 
> 
> Anyway, the Wealth of Nations was a catalyst for Marx's thought. Even
> moreso was Ricardo's Political Economy. Lenin once sais that the three
> sources of Marx's thought are English political economy (Smith & Ricardo),
> German philosophy (Hegel & Feuerbach) and French socialism (St. Simone &
> Fourier).
> 
> --Justin Schwartz
> 
> 





     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---