Smith - The 'mechanistic materialist'

Adam Smith, to my mind, is something of an idealist, despite his empiricist views and his famously logical outlook on the world. He is the founder of modern economics, (certainly a very methodical subject), and became known also for his views on human nature. Smith was of a certain breed of writers during his time, whom often found their work ridiculed by satirists like Jonathan Swift, particularly for their pompous attitudes.

As was stated in the lecture this week, Smith's view of the world may best be compared to clockwork - everything and everyone works meticulously in tandem and the forces of nature will eventually balance out. This even goes so far as to apply to his theories on human nature; the human mind itself is a careful balance between good and evil, greed and charity. His most famous theory however, is that of the 'hidden hand'. Effectively, he states that the circulation of economy is inescapable; the forces of supply and demand will always be present and thus keep the population in a perpetual state of trading, to keep ourselves alive. For example, he disregarded any limits on foreign trade, believing that such laws would bring consequences for the entire country and only act as a temporary form of defiance, before inevitably being lifted.

This is a derivation of 'The Law of Unintended Clauses', another of Smith's theories that also worked on the basis of an holistic economy, i.e. one that is always affected by the actions of another economy.

However, these materialist beliefs I believe Smith to have justified in a rather idealistic fashion. His view that any given economy will inevitably grow, due to the 'hidden hand', and that in this way unemployment is essentially impossible, is somewhat optimistic to say the least, particularly when you look at today's Third World Countries. Similarly, his take on poverty may be seen as being slightly short-sighted, regarding it as relative only to a given era. My first impression here is that he sees the poor as simply complaining and that his reliance on his 'hidden hand' has led him into believing that one day, the economy will simply correct itself.

But although I see Smith, in this respect, as slightly naive, I think that the new theories he introduced had a radical influence on today's economy and he emphasised, for example, the inefficiency, (let alone the cruelty), of slavery and promoted division of labour. Thus, his influence in history should not be forgotten.