Is it “unjust” to attack old writers over things they didn’t get right? Attacking Hippocrates over his lack of knowledge of germ theory is “low.” Meanwhile, taking a jab at Adam Smith or John Locke’s labor theory of value is considered fine by most economists.
What’s fair? What’s bullshit? These writers are dead and from a different time. They cannot argue back and one cannot imagine what their arguments would be. People generally get uncomfortable when one attacks the views of a famous writer from generations past. Is their intuition correct? Or are the ancients to be held to the same standard as anyone on earth today?
A majority of experts do not know the details of the history of thought of their respective field. Doctors very vaguely know the contributions of Hippocrates; most know his name solely from Hippocratic oath and a couple of medical conditions. They have not read his writings; they only know that he is an influential figure, and will confuse his influence with actual knowledge.
Economists are no better; it is hard to find an economist who has actually read Adam Smith. To many economists, Smith “created” economics, the same way that Athena sprang up fully grown from the head of Zeus. Previous thinkers are either not known or their ideas are bastardized. The Mercantilists were apparently a bunch of complete idiots who urged people to accumulate wealth and not spend it. Scholastics are dismissed in a similar fashion, as a bunch of moralistic fools who would not shut up about every good having a “just price.”
The other “key” figures of the history, such as Ricardo, Marshall, Solow, and Friedman, are treated as “gods” while smaller thinkers are completely ignored.
This is a bit of an exaggeration, I don’t think most economists think about the history of thought long enough to come to this conclusion. But attacking the classic writers, it seems that while trying to think of a defense, this general thought process pops up.
Attacking even more famous figures in the general population won’t generate a better reaction. Abraham Lincoln is known for exactly one thing: ending slavery. One can mention Lincoln’s egregious violations of habeas corpus, corruption, and economically restrictive policies. You will stir an emotional reaction, and with a poor train of logic they will somehow conclude that you must support slavery or Southern secession.
Dealing with emotional debaters is a dead end. Ignoring that though, can one make “unfair” arguments against the deceased?
Yes. By today’s standards, humorism (i.e. believing that all illnesses are caused by imbalance of the 4 temperaments) is barely passable as a science. Believing in humorism today is legitimately stupid. But I don’t think this translates back in the time of the ancient Greeks. There is no way for Hippocrates to know about the theory of germs. The technology wasn’t present at the time. He could have hypothesized, but out of infinite possible hypothesis it is unlikely that that one would ever come up, much less stick.
Adam Smith wasn’t actually a huge fan of the labor theory of value, but decided to keep it because it solves the water-diamond paradox. This is a major downturn in the history of though of economics, as Marx took the labor theory far more seriously and hinged his entire theory off of this core idea.
One can’t blame Smith for the rise of socialism, but you can blame him for sticking to a theory that he knew was problematic. You can blame him even more for completely throwing away the theory of his Predecessors: turns out the Scholastics weren’t a bunch of medieval morons. They weren’t even solely medieval, as their theories began in the 13th century and continued on into the 17th century. Their “just price” was actually the price that came to in the common market. In fact, they had developed some pretty impressive theories regarding subjective utility value of price, dynamic theory of entrepreneurship, and money markets. The fact that the water-diamond paradox caused Smith replace the rich theory of the Scholastics with a more susceptible one is a well placed criticism.
Some great writers had truly terrible ideas, and their status should not hinge on that fact. The easiest example that comes to mind is Plato: In Republic and Laws, he lays out his “ideal” society. Plato believed that society should be split into three segments: the philosophers, the guardians, and the producers. The philosophers were to be most respected, and the guardians gained some respect by defending the polis from outside aggression. The producers were the lowest caste of society.
The two ruling classes were to live under abject communism. There is no private property among the elite, and all objects shall be shared, including women and children. This is because, of course, money and private objects only corrupt virtue and has no place among the elite. Marriage partners are to be selected by the state, using the scientific methods developed in animal husbandry. If any particular elite finds themselves unhappy in this arrangement, then they must remember that personal happiness is nothing compared to the happiness of the polis as a whole, a concept which Pluto never properly defines.
To keep the subjects in line, Plato instructs the philosophers to spread the “noble” lie that they themselves have descended from the gods, and everyone else is of inferior heritage. Freedom of speech, is as one would imagine, an abomination to Plato. The arts and any dangerous ideas were to be suppressed.
To Plato, one of the great hallmarks of a utopia is that it must remain ordered and controlled, and to do that it must remain static. This means little or no change, innovation, or economic growth. Similar to Marxists, Plato feared that economic growth would cause the ruling elite to rise up and for the elite to lose control. Population growth posed a problem in a society that was supposed to stay static. Therefore, Plato called for a freezing of the size of the population of the city-state, keeping the number at 5000 agricultural landlord families.
Plato’s influence is no excuse for his completely insane ideas. Context does not help matters either, as the nearby Sparta was under tyrannical communist rule. Athens was also under the rule of the Spartans during the lifetime of Socrates. Plato should have been able to observe the sheer difference in quality of life under the two government structures. In fact, the differences were already noted by Democrates, a contemporary of Socrates. The words of Democrates were later echoed by Aristotle when arguing against Plato’s wishes for a communal society.
When dealing with historical ideas or writers, it becomes pretty clear that context matters. Yes, there are times when criticisms against the long dead are unfair. But in economics, those cases should be less common, as technology isn’t much of a gatekeeper. The dead should be open to criticism, and that criticism can be bolstered by the context of their arguments.
Just because one was influential doesn’t mean they are a god. They are just as capable as logical mistakes as anyone else.
Sources: Economic Thought Before Adam Smith by Murray Rothbard, consultation with professor
PS: Criticizers of free markets will attack the ideas of Adam Smith and treat it as if they have scored a goal against modern economists. They are equally missing the point. While some believe that Smith cannot be criticized, these guys think that criticizing Smith is a legitimate argument against free trade. In both cases they are ignoring context. If one is set out to criticize Smith’s ideas, that’s fine, but this strategy makes no sense if modern economists are your target. Like I’ve said before, most modern economists have never actually read what Smith wrote.
Updated 2020-06-03 (small edits)