Talk:James Denham-Steuart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Baronetcies. | ||
Unclear text (translated?)
I have taken out the following lines The German economists examined Steuart's treatise, especially in relation to the theory of value and the subject of population. They pointed out that he dwelt on the special characters which distinguish the economies proper to different nations and different grades in social progress. Hegel read it at a formative time. It is not clear what it means and there is no source for the claim in the last sentence.
In the remaining text there is also a reference missing for the statement that Adam Smith thought that Steuart's "conversation was better than his book". I have included some biographical info from the New School HET website, and added sources.Robertsch55 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is accurate to call Steuart a moderate mercantilist, this is opinion. His work more clearly documents the way in which the peasantry were forced by the Scottish elites from their agriculturally self-sufficent lifestyles to a situation of wage labor. Attaching Steuart to Mercantilism is further incorrect. Steuart's work reflects more of the means by which capitalism was forced on people rather than documenting mercantilismm. I will delete this from the article unless there is some discussion on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb enfilade (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Reb enfilade,
Thank you for your concern about the article on Steuart. According to the most respected experts in the field (the ones I quote under secondary sources) he can be called a moderate mercantilist which is actually a much more balanced evaluation of his views than Adam Smith's. Your - supposedly Marxist - analysis will in my view clearly not qualify as NPOV. I think even Marx himself showed more sense of nuance on this issue in his Theories of Surplus Value. In plain English: if an economist proposes the kind of government intervention in international trade that Steuart advocates, he is - by common consensus of the leading writers in the field - qualified as a (moderate) mercantilist. There have been no differences of opinion or debates about this. The other important aspect of the issues you raise is that Steuart indeed provides a wealth of historical information to support his arguments, and many historians of economic thought assume that Smith appears to ignore Steuart in his Wealth of Nations precisely because Steuart's analysis provided a credible alternative to his own views. Most of the text was put up by another contributor and came from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I would suggest we respect that source. (also copied to your own talk page)Robertsch55 (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Robertsch55,
Thanks for the quick response, your point is taken. There are however respected political economists that would point to his primary work as documentation of the means by which wage labor was forced on the Scotish people... Should this not be mentioned in the article?
Perhaps more light can be shed on the aspects of 'primitive accumulation', as the german school puts it, in relation to 'Principles of Political Oeconomy'. I am considering writing a small bit on primitive accumulation as it relates to the work of Steuart. Essentially this would be under the heading: "Modern Interpretations of Steuart" As I would like to link this article to the wikipedia article: "Primitive Accumulation of Capital". Steuart provides a great deal of information concerning social division of labour that is relevant to a critique of the founding of capitalism.
Sources that might help further clarify this position are that of "The Invention of Capitalism" by Michael Perelman and "The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View" by Ellen Wood. Perhaps you might suggest how you see these current views which harken back to Steuart being incorporated into this article if at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb enfilade (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I will have a look at my source material and the original Principles text, and will then get back to you, OK?Robertsch55 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes sounds good, let me know what you think.
