Atomism, Capitalism, Class-Conflict

A Capitalist might reject the Marxist concept of Class-Conflict on Atomist grounds, according to which each negotiation, involving two freely bartering parties, is an event independent of any other. Accordingly, even if in each and every wage-negotiation, an employer takes advantage of an employee, 'Class-Conflict' is only a Nominalist fiction denoting nothing above and beyond those multiple events. However, such an argument is inconsistent with elements of Smith's own system. First, according to the latter, the price of any commodity in an exchange is its market-value, a quantity determined by Supply and Demand elsewhere. Second, Smith himself recognizes the inherent tendency in his system to monopoly, and, hence, to its variation, collusion, in which case, one of the parties in a specific exchange is a representative of some unified interest. Finally, Smith's concept of Division of Labor presupposes a Labor-Force that is subsequently divided. So, each of the three fundamental components of a specific Exchange--the two parties, and the resultant price--is, in Smith's own analysis, a derivative instance of some preceding generality. Hence, the Atomist critique of the Marxist concept of Class-Conflict is not a Capitalist one.