We shall not be held to anticipate unduly if we remark here on the way in which opinion,revolted by the aberrations of someof Smiths successors,has tended to turn from the disciples to the master.A strong sense of his comparative ******* fromthe vicious tendencies of Ricardo and his followers has recently prompted the suggestion that we ought now to recur toSmith,and take up once more from him the line of the economical succession.But notwithstanding his indisputablesuperiority,and whilst fully recognising the great services rendered by his immortal work,we must not forget that,as hasbeen already said,that work was,on the whole,a product,though an exceptionally eminent one,of the negative philosophyof the 18th century,resting largely in its ultimate foundation on metaphysical bases.The mind of Smith was mainly occupiedwith the work of criticism so urgent in his time ;his principal task was to discredit and overthrow the economic system thenprevalent,and to demonstrate the radical unfitness of the existing European Governments to direct the industrial movement.
This office of his fell in with,and formed a part of,the general work of demolition carried on by the thinkers who gave to hisperiod its characteristic tone.It is to his honour that,besides this destructive operation,he contributed valuable elements tothe preparation of an organic system of thought and of life.In his special domain he has not merely extinguished many errorsand prejudices,and cleared the ground for truth,but has left us a permanent possession in the judicious analyses ofeconomic facts and ideas,the wise practical suggestions,and the luminous indications of all kinds with which his workabounds.Belonging to the best philosophical school of his period,that with which the names of Hume and Diderot areassociated,he tended strongly towards the positive point of view.But it was not possible for him to attain it;and the finaland fully normal treatment of the economic life of societies must be constituted on other and more lasting foundations thanthose which underlie his imposing construction.
It has been well said that of philosophic doctrines the saying "By their fruits ye shall know them"is eminently true.And itcannot be doubted that the germs of the vicious methods and false or exaggerated theories of Smiths successors are to befound in his own work,though his good sense and practical bent prevented his following out his principles to their extremeconsequences.The objections of Hildebrand and others to the entire historical development of doctrine which the Germansdesignate as "Smithianismus"are regarded by those critics as applicable,not merely to his school as a whole,but,though ina less degree,to himself.The following are the most important of these objections.It is said--(1)Smiths conception of thesocial economy is essentially individualistic.In this he falls in with the general character of the negative philosophy of hisage.That philosophy,in its most typical forms,even denied the natural existence of the disinterested affections,andexplained the altruistic feelings as secondary results of self-love.Smith,however,like Hume,rejected these extreme views;and hence it has been held that in the Wealth of Nations he consciously,though tacitly,abstracted from the benevolentprinciples in human nature,and as a logical artifice supposed an "economic man"actuated by purely selfish motives.
