ADAM SMITH’S CLASSICAL THEORY IS COPYCAT/UN-ORIGINAL

Erle Frayne Argonza

Magandang umaga! Good morning from Manila!

As one can see in the title, Adam Smith’s ideas about political economy were unoriginal or copycat. So I’m going to articulate some notes about the matter. This may come as a shocker to the devotees of Smith and fanatical ideologues of liberal or free market capitalism, but it had to be accepted. This is a matter of fact, not of speculation or libel.

This note is not intended to demean Smith nor to denigrate those whose actions are copycat, far from it. Doing copycat items is among the pathways to success, this lesson is greatly stressed most specially among marketing professionals. If one cannot succeed through innovative or original ideas and practices, then take the ‘copycat way’. Network marketing had already perfected the ‘copycat way’ in fact, by way of optimizing the principle of duplication  (duplicate those presentation lines and themes before your niche customers or clients).

There are people who have this wrong notion that Smith invented liberal capitalism, and this has to be corrected. A simple knowledge of economic history will do. Having taught economic history at the Philippine’s premier university (U. Philippines) for some time, I know as a matter of fact that couples of influential writers emerged in the theoretic domain—who were focused on economic questions—before Smith appeared in the social landscape. Smith appeared when physiocracy, to which Smith properly belongs, was already making waves in France through the works of such gentlemen as Quesnay and Mirabeau.

But as one can see, Smith was a Scot, of the British Isle, and right in his own backyard there were couples of gentlemen too who wrote voluminously on the subject of political economy, from a vantage point that was already departing from the mercantilism of the previous couple of centuries. The departure concerned the sources of wealth, where the same thinkers opined that the ‘sphere of production’ had to be emphasized more than the ‘sphere of exchange’ which the mercantilists, notably Thomas Mun, discoursed on.

Some representative thinkers who preceded Smith were the following:

·        Sir William Petty (1623-87): Considered the founder of political economy. A charter member of the Royal Society.

 

·        John Locke, Sir Dudley North, David Hume, David Hume: Further propounded on basic principles of political economy. E.g. rent, trade, role of government.

 

·        Richard Cantillon: His book Essai sur la nature du commerce en general (1755) was “the most systematic statement of economic principles” (E. Roll, A History of Economic Thought).

 

·        Sir James Steuart: Wrote the voluminous Principles of Political Economy (1767), which was among the first textbooks in economics of that time.

 

·        Honore Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de Mirabeau: Enlightenment thinker, involved with the French revolution, a political moderate who opined that modernizing France better follow the US model of industrialization path. He influenced many younger physiocrates.

 

·        Francois Quesnay: Formally a fellow of the ‘economistes’ or ‘physiocrates’, was known for his popularization of the ‘tableau economique’ (economic table, title of his book), bringing political economy closer to empirical science.

 

·        Jean C.M.V. de Gournay: Another eminent fellow of the ‘physiocrates’, who collaborated with Quesnay in advancing principles of political economy.

 

·        Nicolas Baudeau : Wrote Introduction a la philosophie économique (1771).

 

·        G. F. Le Trosne: wrote De l’ordre social (1777).

 

·        André Morellet:  “ best known by his controversy with Galiani on the freedom of the grain trade during the Flour War” (quoted from Wikipedia).

 

·        Mercier Larivière and Dupont de Nemours: Also eminent members of the ‘physiocrates’.

Smith actually lived in Paris during his youthful heydays, where he stayed with the equally youthful Duke of Buccleuch circa 1764-1766. The Parisian exposure was Smith’s way of baptism into the illustrious physiocrats’ thought streams, and the rest was history.

So to my fellows in the professional world and this planet who continue to churn thoughts that Smith was the ‘originator of capitalism’, please rethink your opinions. Historical facts do not the least substantiate your thesis. Rather, what is right is that Smith brought political economy even closer to empirical science than ever, and his Wealth of Nations was a monumental effort during his time to construct a text book on the subject that was considerably a scientific material more than philosophy (ethics, metaphysics) though Smith still wrote philosophical treatises within the ambit of the methods of philosophy.

I need not belabor the point that Smith didn’t invent empiricism. Just by reflecting on the names above, one can see the names of giant figures in British empiricism (e.g Hume, Locke), who themselves took off from intellectual giants that preceded them (e.g. Francis Bacon).

So, please disabuse yourselves of Smith as ‘originator’ of anything. He never even boasted of originating anything at all. Rather, he systematized thought constructs that were already prevalent during his heyday. The purposes of his economic doctrines were already explained in some other articles writ by me.

[22 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila.]  

INDIANA JONES SLAMS CAPITALISM, BRITISH FINANCIERS

Erle Frayne  Argonza

Among the very revealing facets of the latest Indiana Jones film is its effective deconstruction of ‘free enterprise’ capitalism and the force behind it, the British financier oligarchy. Capitalism and British are actually one and the same, Britain being the ideological heart of capitalist doctrines and action.

Dr. Jones had his ‘junior partner’, the MI6 agent, throughout his adventures. But the shocking revelation to Dr. Jones was that his partner would later betray him for one expected reason: money (or its metallic signifier, Gold).

Capitalism is a system founded on pure greed, and every kind of doctrine—particularly those based on physiocratic economics—was built in so sophisticated a manner to justify it. It is based on the money economy, and thrives only in conditions of imperialist strategies.

There is no way that capitalism or laissez faire can progress without markets overseas to sustain it. And such markets cannot be sustained without economic-political imperialism. That was the purpose of the British Empire territories: as sure-ball markets for British articles of trade and finance capital.

The economic British Empire is very much alive, the financial empire ruled by the British-Dutch financiers is around. But the Empire is now crumbling, and crashing fast, as the financial bubble that it created globally had imploded. The erosion is very rapid, the outcome unpredictable.

The Indiana Jones film showed this collapse and eventual eradication of capitalism well. Mr. MI6, upon seeing the colossal gold in the sanctuary of the dormant alien species (Zeta Reticuli or ‘grey’), hoarded as much as he ca, unmindful of the fast eroding ground that he stood upon, ground that was degenerating due to the force field built by the alien’s preparation to move out of the area.

Maddened by his unfathomable greed, Mr. MI6 could no longer effectively see his very own immediate surround. No calamity, catastrophe, devastation could ever change the focus of this mad man, only gold (money and capitalism) mattered. That’s what the British financiers are doing now: loot and loot more amid destruction.

The spaceship-alien complex, which signifies actually the rapidly emerging post-industrial or information society and its ‘space age’ construct, simply blasted down the mad gold hunter that signifies the old world of ‘money economy’ and its last adaptive system of laissez faire capitalism.

Greed cannot be sustained, systems founded to advance greed can never be sustained, and money-based systems are no match to knowledge-based systems in long run. The former will crumble beyond disrepair as the latter ascends to prominence and dominate all areas of life, including the space terrain.  

Joseph Schumpeter, Daniel Bell and Alvin Toffler all forewarned the world about the eventual collapse of capitalism. As soon as the information society moves up, it will crash those institutions founded on hoarding, on money and greed. And that crashing time is now happening.

It is surely an exciting thing to await the next Indiana Jones series. Better watch it please, as the new Indiana Jones Jr. belongs to a new breed of humans, the knowledge-savvy types. Let us see more scenes of capitalism being slam banged, defanged and destroyed in the next episodes coming.

[Writ 30 May 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]