Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 9th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Marx and Smith



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Bruce Crichton's sarcastic incredulity (Letters, 12 May) is unwarranted. All wealth is derived from human labour. The value of any commodity can be determined only by assessing the amount of work involved in its production. That is the bedrock on which Adam Smith founded his political philosophy at the height of the Scottish Enlightenment.
Karl Marx accepted this and drew the logical inference that all wealth belongs naturally to the proletariat and that capitalism is a devious form of theft.

This is the most obvious way in which Smith is a precursor of Marx.

A MURPHY, Learmonth Grove, Edinburgh





The full article contains 102 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 May 2008 8:56 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 17/05/2008 07:52:58
Piffle! All wealth is NOT derived from human labour. Some is, some isn't. A building plot with good views is worth more than one without, for example. An apple is another example of labour-free value. A gallon of water to a millionaire dying of thirst is worth far more than that same gallon amongst the many in his bath tub. A painting by a big name is worth far more than a similar by an unknown. The notion that capital/value is merely decayed labour so distorts reality as to explain why Marxism is rapidly becoming an historical oddity.
2

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 17/05/2008 08:27:14
Given that Marx and Smith were both economists and that Smith came before Marx then, in an obvious, trivial sense Smith was a precursor of Marx. It is also true that both accepted the erroneous labour theory of value as also did John Locke who was clearly no socialist. However, it is unfair to accuse Smith of being guilty of the logical fallacy that the letter-writer attributes to Marx. From the false assumption that the price of a product is the result merely of the (socially necessary - whatever that means) labour that goes into its production, one cannot validly conclude that the proletariat ought to receive all of the profit from its sale. It no more or less follows that the proletariat ought to bear all of the losses from its sale if it is not profitable.

3

Infidel,

Dar ul harb 17/05/2008 08:28:46
How correct Marx's speculations on economics were can be judged by how successful they have been when put into practice.
4

Itchy,

17/05/2008 14:03:00
The writer has it completely wrong. Marxism is rationalized theft and capitalism is the system of free trade.

#3 Lefties will blame the failure of Marxist economics on America, no matter how many millions die from executions and starvation.
5

ThePeter,

Glasgae 17/05/2008 19:12:39
# 4 totally agree with you
Karl Marx was joking. Problem is, nobody got the joke, they took it seriously. That French Connection UKad a LOT of people on planet Earth

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.