----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Ben, I am not arguing with you. I'm just trying to understand what you mean. It is
possible that there is some basis for disagreement, but at the moment I don't know what it
is. I am still confused. :-\ Here is what you wrote before:
 
"But let's remember that the culprit is the motivated ideological INTERPRETATION of Smith.
If we actually read Smith we find that the "Enronization" of society was precisely his
primary concern. Jerry Evensky & others have developed this point over the past decade &
should feel vindicated today."
 
If, now, you assert that all interpretations are "motivated ideologically," how can
"motivated ideological interpretation" be a culprit? Are you merely trying to remind us us
of the proposition that all history requires interpretation and that every human being has
an ideology, whether it can be articulated or not, that drives his interpretative action?
This proposition implies that if we want to understand Smith, we should try to understand
his ideology, so defined. If so, I doubt that any list member would disagree.
 
If this is what you mean, how is it relevant to the topic? As I recall, the topic was:
"What meaning did Smith attach to his statement about the invisible hand." All of the
answers that I read, including mine, seemed to implicitly assume that the meaning has
something to do with his ideology.
 
 
Although you aimed to clarify you earlier meaning, I am still confused.  
You write: 
 
>Thus "Enronization" was supposed to capture what Smith had predicted would happen to a
market society who's Enlightened (the era; not a judgment) civic ethical institutions
(external & internalized) no longer function effectively as a constraint on
individualistic accumulation.
> 
 
Please excuse me if I ask for further clarification. The problem turns on what you mean by
"Enlightened...institutions" here. I am not a "Smith scholar" and it has been many years
since I read some of his works closely enough to speak with great certainty. But I recall
him writing (1) about a "system of natural liberty," or some such, even though the system
he had in mind had not  been adopted. I also recall him writing (2) about institutions
such as guilds and other protections for monopoly and such as barriers to trade erected in
the interest of particular groups. These institutions are not part of the "system of
natural liberty." In other words, I recall him writing on the one hand about a system in
which the "institutions" promoted freedom of enterprise and free international trade and,
on the other hand, about one in which the "institutions" intervened with free trade.
Presumably, Smith believed that if people were "enlightened" by his book, they would
promote free enterprise institutions. Those who were "enlightened" by interventionist
institutions would promote intervention. Some other source of enlightenment, or ideology,
would dictate their views.
 
Let me ask the following question and a follow up question(s): 
 
1. Is my recollection consistent with your interpretation? 
 
2. Regardless of my recollection, does your statement quoted above assert that Smith
predicted (a) that interventionist institutions would not constrain "individualistic
accumulation" or (b) that free enterprise institutions would not constrain
"individualistic institutions?" Or something different? Can you provide a reference on
what Smith believed about "individualistic accumulation?"
 
Pat Gunning 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]