The author of this article intervenes into discussions initiated by the Slovene translation of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. He argues for such an interpretation of Smith's work that distinguishes those aspects that have been confirmed by the subsequent development of capitalist economies and economic theory from those that have proved to be incorrect either from the viewpoint of subsequent historical development and the development of political economy. He concludes that Smith's legacy should not bear the burden of one-sided and uncritical appropriations of its weak points by neoclassical economics. What is needed, rather, is to base oneself on those authors that have developed the positive points of Smith's legacy.
|
