By Thiago V. S. Coelho

Adam Smith’s Labor Theory Was Deeply Flawed — Smith portrayed workers as naturally disadvantaged against employers due to combinations, lack of reserves, and bargaining inequality. The article argues these claims were exaggerated or false and laid the intellectual groundwork for later socialist and interventionist ideas.

The Myth of Employer Cartels and Worker Helplessness — Employers are rivals, not a unified class; wage competition and consumer sovereignty discipline them. The “tacit combination” idea is unfalsifiable and ignores the mutual dependence in the labor market.

Modern Labor Law Institutionalizes Smith’s Errors — Laws granting unions exclusive representation, compulsory bargaining, and special privileges rest on the Smithian premise of unequal bargaining power. The author calls for rejecting this framework in favor of voluntary association, marginal productivity, and open competition.

For over two centuries, Adam Smith has been celebrated as a founding figure of modern economics; The Wealth of Nations, first published in 1776, is still described as the first comprehensive system of political economy. Yet, from an Austrian perspective, that legacy is not a clean inheritance but a poisoned one. Murray Rothbard’s judgment was deliberately severe: the famous book was “a huge, sprawling, inchoate, confused tome, rife with vagueness, ambiguity and deep inner contradictions.” Smith’s contradictions matter because they entered the moral vocabulary of capitalism.

Nowhere is this ambiguity more destructive than in Smith’s treatment of labor. Classical liberals spent generations resisting Marxian exploitation theory, compulsory unionism, and the doctrine that the state must equalize bargaining power. Yet they were often defending the market against premises Smith himself helped normalize. Smith did not invent socialism, and he was no enemy of commerce. But in his account of wage bargaining, he planted the idea that the worker stands before capital in a naturally inferior position.

The Invention of “Labor’s Disadvantage”

Smith’s central claim was vivid and misleading: in ordinary wage disputes, the masters “have the advantage.” He wrote that masters are fewer, can combine more easily, and can usually force workers into compliance, while workers face punishment or ruin when their own combinations fail. He added that employers could live a year or two on accumulated stocks, whereas many workers “could not subsist a week” without employment. Smith also claimed that masters were “always and every where” in a tacit, constant, and uniform combination not to raise wages above the current rate.

In The Theory of Collective Bargaining, W. H. Hutt pointed out that this argument........

© Eurasia Review