Adam
Smith was not “the Father of Capitalist thought”. He was a moral
philosopher who described society as he saw it and the people within it who
behaved in certain ways. He never knew the word “capitalism”
(it was not invented until 1854).
Adam
Smith never said there was an “invisible force” at work. He used a
metaphor of “an invisible hand” (popular in the 18thcentury and used
widely, mainly by theologians) on two occasions only to “describe in a more
striking and interesting manner” (Smith, "Lectures on Rhetoric",
1762, 1983, p 29), two instances in two quite separate instances, separated by
centuries, where the individuals concerned – “a proud and unfeeling landlord”
forget he shared his crop, and an18th-century “merchant” - worried about the
security of his capital if he sent it abroad in “foreign trade”, acted to
protect their interests.
I
am often asked why I spend so much time on this Blog bashing away at the
so-called idea of Adam Smith’s that “an invisible hand” of “markets”,
“supply and demand”, the “economy”, or whatever, so arranges the economy
(“miraculously”) that people left free to arrange their capital in the way they
choose in their “self-interest’ (even their “selfishness” claimed Paul
Samuelson), will inevitably advance the “best interests” of the
community. No such entity exists. The politics and
moral conventions of society decide how a society’s people behave…
The
“entrepreneurial spirit” gets going from a genuine freedom to do so. There
is no “invisible hand” awaiting release. And it didn’t come from Adam Smith in
the form it is widely known as today.
Even
in the most desperate of circumstances, where state corruption, criminal gangs,
and petty laws plague big and small entrepreneurs and their workers, as is
common in the city slums of Asia, and in gangster corrupted capitalism, much
entrepreneurial energy is found at work, if often “underground”, to keep ahead
of government inspectors, gangsters, and the money-lenders. Unleash
that entrepreneurial force and apply the advice of “markets where possible, the
state where necessary”, and stand back and stay back.
For
evidence just look at 20th-century Hong Kong
… and how the West really started in the 19th-century. Sure, we had
widespread slums to contend with, but without entrepreneurial-led markets, we
would still be there in those slums in the 21st century.
