This article was sent to me. It is written by Kenan Malik in British Sunday paper ‘The Observer’ (a paper that would be agreed to be ‘on the left’) and is titled “Worship the rich, neglect the poor…Adam Smith’s words still capture how power works”. It is tempting to ignore low-quality articles like this as they do not present the strongest arguments for their side and good criticism and arguments should at least try to engage with the best of the other side. In this case however there is deliberate dishonesty which really rankles.
One of the things I would like to do with this blog is combat some bad arguments such as this, that whilst are low quality are still consumed by many. The person passing on this article would have been left with the impression that Adam Smith is a caricature of an uncaring right-wing capitalist were it not for my arguments to the contrary.
My first observation is that whilst being in the picture for the article, and in the title, Adam Smith and his works are only mentioned at the very end. This is an odd structure where this final part looks almost added as an extra, possibly at the request of an editor in order to generate a clickbait title and/or make it appear in more online searches.
The main argument advanced by Malik is a contrast in more regulations for workers versus fewer regulations for companies. No evidence is presented to show this a general trend, we are just presented with two key examples. The first of these is about allowing companies to hire agency workers to replace workers on strike. This is presented as ‘more regulation for workers’ but this does not make sense. It is in fact less regulation for agency workers who may want these jobs. Those unionised workers who are on strike do not face extra regulation, but of course their political objective may be less likely to be achieved. You do not have to have a view on the right or wrong of the specific law, but the presentation of this as more regulation for workers, is not correct.
The other example relates to the Grenfell Tower inquiry and seeks to paint a picture of dangerous deregulation and society shaped by greed and disfunction. This may be true in this specific case, but without more robust evidence it cannot prove the wider point about society. It is also worth responding to the final point “regulations must be as loose as possible even if that means endangering, even sacrificing the lives of ordinary people”. The implication is that any regulation that could save lives or improve health must always be worth it but this cannot be the case. You could look at any area of work or life and conclude that it could be safer, but this needs weighing against other considerations. Why is the motorway speed limit not 20mph, would this not save lives?
The value of life has been of significant interest in the discussion around COVID and the government response to it, for example in this article by Bryan Caplan. The idea extra safety outweighs all other concerns has been promoted considerably even though no-one can seriously believe this when considering it more than cursorily.
Finally we get to the small last paragraph where Adam smith comes in. The presentation of this, in a series of small, disjointed quotes sets alarm bells ringing that the author is not being honest in how they present these ideas, and this is in fact the case. Malik implies that Smith believes it is correct to neglect the poor and admire the rich. Here is the quote from Adam Smith in full:
“This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect, persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages.”
He is in fact arguing the opposite, that it is wrong to think this way and that people should be judged on their virtue. Smith then expands on this point at length and I doubt that if Malik had read this properly, he would have much to disagree with. However Smith is regarded as pro-free market and therefore right-wing, and is thus considered poorly by many of Malik’s readership, he is pandering to them by misrepresenting Smith.
Malik continues this misrepresentation in the next paragraph, now quoting ‘The Wealth of Nations’ to imply Smith supports the state repressing the poor to protect the rich. Again the full quote from Adam Smith is:
“Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days labour, civil government is not so necessary.”
Smith here is not making any normative argument about what should be, but is stating what is. The wider context of this section is discussing the expenses of the state, and in this subsection the expenses required for the justice system. His argument is that in any advanced society with property rights, there is a need for the justice system to defend those rights (and that this is costly). Does Malik disagree on either the truth of this reality or the desirability of having law and order in defence of property rights? Maybe some reading up on ‘dekulakization’ would enlighten him?
In summary, Malik’s arguments are weak and inconsistent, relying on anecdote rather than comprehensive evidence, and on selective distortion of other people’s work to provide confirmation bias for his readers. The one redeeming feature of the article is that does link to free online versions of the original works, which I heartily recommend.
Another comment as yes, I read backwards (and out of order) through the archives:
I find a lot of even scholarly work online clearly based on a misreading of the original text, in reviews, in essays...
I wonder if people also don't even get what "respecting" means in the first amendment ("regarding", not "according respect to")?
Excellent essay. It makes me nuts how people misattribute things to Smith, apparently intentionally, given how difficult it is to dig up the quotes in the first place. It isn't as though every teenager is running around with some commonly said Smith quote on his t-shirt; you actually have to read the book so you should know what he is saying.
I suppose I should be pleased that he at least linked to TMS, a book more people should absolutely read. I think I will reserve that praise for you, instead! Well done.