Marx: From Hegel and Feuerbach to Adam Smith

This paper discusses the development of Marx’s thought over a period of something like fifteen months, between the spring of 1843 and the autumn of 1844. The focus of the paper is Marx’s first encounter with classical political economy as he found it in the Wealth of Nations. The outcome of this encounter was presented by Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. It is argued here that in the classical theory, with which he had hitherto been largely unfamiliar, Marx found all the elements he needed to synthesise the philosophical standpoint he had developed in the preceding months with political economy. The Manuscripts represent the first crucial stage in the development of this synthesis. This first encounter of Marx with classical political economy, and his first steps in the development of his synthesis, have received hardly any attention in the literature. The present paper seeks to fill this gap.

Marx: From Hegel and Feuerbach to Adam Smith

This paper discusses the development of Marx’s thought over a period of something like fifteen months, between the spring of 1843 and the autumn of 1844. The focus of the paper is Marx’s first encounter with classical political economy as he found it in the Wealth of Nations. The outcome of this encounter was presented by Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. It is argued here that in the classical theory, with which he had hitherto been largely unfamiliar, Marx found all the elements he needed to synthesise the philosophical standpoint he had developed in the preceding months with political economy. The Manuscripts represent the first crucial stage in the development of this synthesis. This first encounter of Marx with classical political economy, and his first steps in the development of his synthesis, have received hardly any attention in the literature. The present paper seeks to fill this gap.

Nearer to Sraffa than Marx: Adam Smith on Productive and Unproductive Labour

This paper supercedes an earlier attempt I made to pin down the meaning and significance of Adam Smith’s theory of productive and unproductive labour. (Strathclyde Discussion Papers in Economics, No.08-05) My conclusion then was that while Smith’s understanding of what was needed to achieve economic growth was sound, his discussion was marred by apparently conflicting definitions of productive labour. That (essentially conventional) interpretation does not, I now believe, do justice to Smith. Revision is therefore called for: hence the present paper.