Adam Smith has long been recognized as the father of modern economics. More recently, scholars have emphasized his standing as a moral philosopher—one who was prepared to critique markets as well as to praise them. But Smith’s contributions to political theory are still underappreciated and relatively neglected. In this bold, revisionary book, Paul Sagar argues that not only have the fundamentals of Smith’s political thought been widely misunderstood, but that once we understand them correctly, our estimations of Smith as economist and as moral philosopher must radically change.
Rather than seeing Smith either as the prophet of the free market, or as a moralist who thought the dangers of commerce lay primarily in the corrupting effects of trade, Sagar shows why Smith is more thoroughly a political thinker who made major contributions to the history of political thought. Smith, Sagar argues, saw war, not commerce, as the engine of political change and he was centrally concerned with the political, not moral, dimensions of—and threats to—commercial societies. In this light, the true contours and power of Smith’s foundational contributions to western political thought emerge as never before.
Offering major reinterpretations of Smith’s political, moral, and economic ideas, Adam Smith Reconsidered seeks to revolutionize how he is understood. In doing so, it recovers Smith’s original way of doing political theory, one rooted in the importance of history and the necessity of maintaining a realist sensibility, and from which we still have much to learn.
0 有用 KevinZ 2023-07-29 17:22:19 上海
Sagar这本书主要的论辩对象是Rasmussen和Hanley等人解读斯密的思路,即把斯密的学说视为对商业社会的辩护和对卢梭的回应。为了实现这一论辩目的,本书提出了诸多新奇而搏人眼球的说法,例如认为斯密根本不重视卢梭、认为斯密将中国视为商业社会、否定《国富论》中存在四阶段论的论述等等。但感觉这些说法并没有得到很充分的支持,论证有些稀薄。更关键的是,全书有点为反驳而反驳,驳完之后也没能提供多少对斯... Sagar这本书主要的论辩对象是Rasmussen和Hanley等人解读斯密的思路,即把斯密的学说视为对商业社会的辩护和对卢梭的回应。为了实现这一论辩目的,本书提出了诸多新奇而搏人眼球的说法,例如认为斯密根本不重视卢梭、认为斯密将中国视为商业社会、否定《国富论》中存在四阶段论的论述等等。但感觉这些说法并没有得到很充分的支持,论证有些稀薄。更关键的是,全书有点为反驳而反驳,驳完之后也没能提供多少对斯密的整体性的正面理解(在这一点上,相比于本书主要反驳的Rasmussen那本书,Sagar做得差远了)。Sagar作为洪特的学生,在本书中是以洪特的思路作为论述基础的(虽然他在一些地方并不完全同意洪特的解读),对洪特之外的斯密解读者看起来都没什么基本的敬意。 (展开)
0 有用 知止 2024-03-06 04:24:24 英国
泡在文本上的努力很值得尊重,特别是对四阶段和推测历史的区分。不过就我的阅读经验而言,Berry的点评整体上更具说服力,而且就解释潜力来看,恐怕这样的洞见也很难有实质的解释推进。
0 有用 不安的斯塔特 2024-01-25 17:54:27 安徽
腐败一章确实写的不好