Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Capitalism, Exploitation, Lending

The Marxist concept of Capitalist Exploitation consists in Profit from the Labor of another.  Thus, Slavery is a special case of such Exploitation.  But, in turn, Profit from the Labor of another can be conceived as a special case of Gain that entails any Loss of another.  Hence, any lending with Interest is also a case of such Exploitation.  Clearly, the victim of Exploitation is acting involuntarily, whether it is the slave under the whip, the laborer who must accept disadvantaged conditions in order to survive, or the borrower in desperate straits.  Accordingly, Marxist Socialism is only a special case of a remedy for Capitalist Exploitation; others include the abolition of Slavery, the illegalization of lending with Interest, and, in general, the elimination of any interaction in which Profit entails Loss.  Likewise, if Smith had focused exclusively on the general aim of national Economic benefit, he might have recognized that individual Profit-seeking is antithetical to such a doctrine.  Indeed, if he had maintained his initial insight of Wealth of Nations--that the basic unit of any Market is the exchange of vital necessities--and formulated as a fundamental normative Market principle the equitable exchange, i. e. in which both parties are satisfied--the recognition that Profit-seeking is antithetical to that principle might have stopped him from proposing it as his fundamental principle instead at the outset.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Profit-Motive and Usury

The existence of laws against Usury implies that there is a threshold at which Interest becomes harmful.  Furthermore, the variability of that threshold indicates its arbitrariness.  Hence, it is even possible that 0% is that threshold, i. e. that charging any Interest on a loan is harmful.  Now, the comparison with an Interest-free loan shows that the only motive for charging Interest is Profit for its own sake.  Thus, implied in the acceptance of a law against Usury, is the recognition of the inadequacy of the Profit-motive as a fundamental principle.  For, implied is that 'One should seek Profit' is not unconditional, and, hence, does not account for all behavior.  Furthermore, the arbitrariness of the threshold, which does not preclude the possibility that it be 0%, implies that at least some of, and perhaps the entire system that Smith bases on the Profit-motive is Vicious, a possibility that is clearer from the identification of the Profit-motive and Greed, a Vice in many Moral doctrines.  Nevertheless, Capitalists seem not to recognition that their acceptance of constraints on Usury entails constraints on Profit-seeking behavior.

Monday, October 29, 2018

Capitalism and Contradiction

Simultaneous Excess and Deficiency is tautological if two parties are involved, but contradictory if attributed to a single entity.  Thus, the fundamental Contradiction of Smith's system is his promotion of both behavior that creates an Excess-Deficiency combination, i. e. the Profit-motive, and a unitary Economic entity, i. e. a Nation.  In other words, it promotes both Zero-Sum transactions and a non-Zero-Sum goal.  Now, Exploitation can be conceived as simultaneous Excess and Deficiency.  But, studying it as such, Marx misses casting it as a Contradiction, i. e. by attributing it to a Whole, and, hence, as systematically related to Dialectical Materialism.  Similarly, subsequent Capitalists have avoided the potential internal Contradiction by simply de-emphasising the holistic component of Smith's system.  Accordingly, the American resistance to the presumed inevitability of Socialist Revolution that has stymied some Marxists, is due to the relative lack of such a holistic component in a relatively new society that is too young to develop any entrenched common tradition, resulting in an unusually resilient Individualism.

Sunday, October 28, 2018

Profit, Excess, Interest

Profit is a Surplus with respect to an initial investment.  But it is also an Excess--with respect to breaking even.  Thus, as has been previously discussed, the Profit-motive is open to the diagnosis that it is an expression of Greed, and, hence, a Vice.  Now, as the fundamental principle of Capitalism, it is a factor in all transactions.  But, one transaction in particular expresses the characteristic of a fundamental principle that it is for its own sake--charging Interest on a loan.   That expression is sharply defined since Interest quantifies the Excess entailed in Profit-seeking, i. e. with respect to an Interest-free loan.  Thus, Interest is the primary exemplar of Capitalism.  Now, Interest entails not only Excess, but Deficiency, i. e. that of the payer.  Thus, Interest is a Zero-Sum relation, or, in other words, the Profit that it entails is one-sided, not general.  Accordingly, by missing that Profit is an Excess, Marx also overlooks that the fundamental Capitalist contradiction is that between Excess and Deficiency in what is purportedly a unity, i. e. a Nation.

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Profit-Seeking and Freedom

The Profit-motive is sometimes defended as 'free' behavior, and, so protected as such.  It follows from that thesis that one is free to choose between breaking even and realizing a profit.  Furthermore, since Profit-seeking is accepted by those defenders as the fundamental behavioral principle, the choice is independent of any ends that might condition it.  But, according to Aristotle, any pursuit of Excess, e. g. seeking more than breaking even, is behavior that is out of one's control, and hence, is not 'free'.  So, absent a response to the Aristotelian analysis, as well to the Spinozist exposure of its inadequacy, the association of 'freedom' and Profit-seeking remains groundless.

Friday, October 26, 2018

Profit-Seeking and the Critique of Capitalism

Marx attacks Capitalism in two, not necessarily related, ways: 1. Via Dialectical Materialism, leading to an exposure of the internal contradictions of the system; and 2. Via an etiology of Profit, leading to an exposure of the Exploitation of Labor.  However, in the latter case, he leaves unexamined the phenomenon of Profit itself, thereby missing the possibility of a more direct, more coherent, criticism of Capitalism.  For, as has been previously discussed, the foundation of Capitalism--the Profit-motive--is shaky in two respects.  First, the proposed identity of traditional Egoism and Profit-seeking is without justification.  Second, healthiness of Profit-seeking behavior is taken for granted.  So, Marx misses an opportunity for a simpler, more decisive undermining of the foundation of Capitalism, perhaps because it would not entail Socialism as a remedy.  He thus leaves unchallenged the dogma that Profit-seeking is sound behavior, a dogma the acceptance of which has become widely and deeply entrenched since.

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Greed, Goodness, Capitalism

Greed is a Vice, according to Aristotle, simply on the grounds that it is a disordered condition of a Soul.  So, Aristotle would unequivocally reject the thesis that 'Greed is good'.  Now, that phrase has been associated with the excesses of the resurgent Free Market Capitalism of recent decades, primarily via the film Wall Street, which may have some factual roots.  In any case, because of that specific association, the possibility of an inherent relation of Greed to Capitalism has gone unaddressed.  So, generally unconsidered is that the fundamental principle of Capitalism--the Profit-motive--is equivalent to Greed, in either its descriptive or normative versions.  For, entailed in it is that simply meeting one's needs may be deficient in some respect.  Now, there may be cases in which realizing a profit is necessary to meeting one's needs.  But the formulation is indifferent to any such specification--it ascribes to Profit a Goodness that is unconditional, without a derivation from a Rational principle.  Thus, the Profit-motive in itself is a Vice, according to Aristotle.  So, not only Greed, but Capitalism itself, and not merely the variety that has emerged in recent decades, is Bad, according to Aristotle--for the Profit-seeker, independent of the harm done to any others.

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Capitalism, Consequentialism, Ethics of Character

Consequentialism can be contrasted with what might be called the Ethics of Character.  The latter includes what are better known as the Ethics of Virtue, the Morality of Intention, and Deontic Morality, in which the bearer of evaluation is how one conducts oneself, independent of the consequences of one's conduct.  One graphic example of the contrast is the respective diagnoses of Greed--an internal loss of control vs. harming others.  So, what differentiates them is the case of an attempt to steal from another that fails.  For, according to the Consequentialist, no harm was actually done, so there is no disapproval of the attempt in itself.  But, according to the Ethics of Character, even a failed attempt consists in a loss of control, and, thus, meets disapproval on those grounds alone.  Now, one significant application of the distinction is to the Marxist critique of Capitalist Exploitation--an ill simply because of the harm done to its victim vs. that ill plus that of the character of the exploiter.  In other words, according to the Ethics of Character, Capitalism harms all, with different types of ill corresponding to the difference between Exploiter and Exploited.  Thus, Marxism tends to undermine the scope of its doctrine when it focuses on championing the victims of Capitalism.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Capitalism, Formal Causality, Greed

Mill's 'higher' vs. 'lower' contrast is beyond the scope of Consequentialism.  Instead, it is based on a concept of Character that has a long tradition, originating with Plato and Aristotle.  Now, though the latter classifies it otherwise, the control by the 'higher', i. e. Reason, of the 'lower', i. e. animal impulses is an instance of Formal Causality.  Accordingly, the evaluation of Character is in terms of the efficacy of Formal Causality, e. g. Vice consists in a failure of Reason to control impulses.  Thus, for example, Greed is a Vice, according to Aristotle, primarily because it consists in a lack of such control, independent of consequences, such as the violation of the well-being of another.  Likewise, seeking more than one needs, e. g. Profit-seeking, is, on the basis of Formal Causality, a Vice, even if, on the basis of Teleological Causality, e. g. for a Consequentialist like Smith, it is a Virtue.  In other words, according to an Ethics of Character, what Ends do not justify is Vice.  So, Mill does not recognize the broader implications of his 'higher'-'lower' contrast, which he seems to regard as a minor ad hoc device, implications that include a criticism of Capitalist behavior that is independent of its inconsideration of the General Happiness.

Monday, October 22, 2018

Capitalism and Formal Causality

While for Smith, Profit-seeking is a normative principle, according to other Capitalists, it is a descriptive principle, i. e. signifying that Profit-seeking is the fundamental behavioral instinct in humans.  One challenge to the latter position, but not the former, is the apparent existence of sympathetic instincts, which Smith recognizes, as well as the parental instinct to nurture and protect a child, recognized by many people, and evident in most other species.  Another potential counter-example is to both principles, presenting a more radical challenge.  As Kant recognizes, at least some artists, and possibly other agents in other endeavors, are motivated by Genius to create, often overriding more pecuniary impulses, examples of which are not adequately repudiated by cases of 'artists' who produce works simply in order to sell them.  Now, the artist is driven to shape material; hence, their fundamental impulse is Formal Causality.  Furthermore, in the creative process, an 'end' is simply the last moment of a continuum, e. g. the final note of a song, the final dab of paint on a canvas, etc.  On that basis, a Means-End interpretation of artistic behavior is an abstraction.  But, both versions of the Profit-motive are Consequentialist.  Hence, neither of them is applicable to artistic behavior, while conversely, each can be shown to be arbitrarily derived from a Formal Causality pattern, i. e. with the attainment of Profit merely the final and not necessarily privileged moment of a continual process.  Thus, Capitalism is not as well-grounded as either of its types of proponent take it to be.

Sunday, October 21, 2018

Capitalism, Means, Ends

It is unclear if he realizes it, but Mill abandons Consequentialism when he asserts that 'higher' pleasures are superior to 'lower' ones.  For, as the tautological appearance of the assertion belies, a deeper, contingent, thesis is being obscured.  That deeper thesis contrasts different means to pleasure, e. g. reading a book vs. drinking whiskey, i. e. the 'higher'-'lower' contrast is actually that of two different means to pleasure, one 'Spiritual' in some respect, the other 'Physical', in some respect.  But, if the Means to an End is the bearer of Value, then Consequentialism is abandoned.  So, the status of Means in Utilitarianism is problematic.  Now, Capitalism is Utilitarian, i. e. one ought to maximize Profit, because the maximization of Profit is the best Consequence.  But, then it devalues the Means to Profit, so Capitalism does not inherently distinguish between, say, profitable labor, profitable chance, profitable stealing, or profitable enslavement.  In other words, the popular charge against Marxism--'The ends justify the means--does apply to Capitalism.

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Capitalism and Slavery

A theoretical proposition is falsified if it entails a contradiction.  Thus, a universal theoretical proposition is falsified by the existence of one counter-example.  Now, the normative proposition 'One ought to do A' can be rendered as the universal theoretical proposition 'Every doing A is Good'.  Thus, the normative proposition is falsified by any occurrence of A that is not Good.  Now, Profit is the difference between Expense and Receipt.  So, in the case of 'One ought to seek to maximize Profit', an instance of seeking to maximize Profit is enslaving another person, i. e. since it entails a minimization of Expense.  But the widespread illegalization of Slavery strongly indicates that it is not Good.  So, since 'One ought to seek to maximize Profit' is a cardinal principle of Capitalism, that Slavery is not only allowed, or even encouraged, but possibly even required in some circumstances, by Capitalism, suffices as a repudiation of that doctrine.

Friday, October 19, 2018

Wealth of Nations and Plutocracy

Selfishness vs. Sympathy is an open question in Smith's oeuvre because he leaves their relation unaddressed.  Thus, the more fundamental question may be--why does someone familiar with Hume, Rousseau, Locke, and Aristotle leave the relation of Wealth of Nations to Political Philosophy and Morality unaddressed? One answer is that he takes some received treatments of those topics for granted, and conceives the scope of Economics to be subordinated to them, much as the ethos of a sports competition is restricted to the event itself.  Another answer is that his ambition for Wealth of Nations is even greater than an innovative Economic system.  Rather, he might be projecting it as the foundation of a Plutocratic Political and Moral doctrine, thereby breaking with a long tradition according to which Wealth is, at best, a subordinate Good.  The latter answer seems to be accepted by some of Smith's followers, notably those who adapt Theology, Evolutionism, or Democracy, to Capitalism, e. g. some Calvinists, Social Darwinists, and some American Conservatives, respectively.  Implicit in that acceptance is an answer to the first question--Selfishness preempts Sympathy.

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Profit, Loss, Morality

Scholars attribute to Smith an unresolved conflict between Selfishness and Sympathy.  But this interpretation misses a more specific, concrete, potentially Morally significant, consequence of his advocacy of Selfishness.  For, as has been previously discussed, the Profit-motive in the context of a Competition entails harm to others.  Smith obliquely addresses this consequence when he attributes to the Invisible Hand the power to equalize all inequalities, but otherwise seems oblivious to the possibility that he is advocating harming others.  In contrast, some subsequent Capitalist address the possibility, and justify its actuality.  For example, Theological Capitalists attribute economic failure to divine punishment, and Social Darwinists attribute it to a law of nature.  In any case, few in a Capitalist society such as the contemporary U. S. even question this feature of everyday life.

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Profit-Seeking and Competition

In a legal context, if P intends A, A entails B, and both A and B occur as a result of P's effort to accomplish A, then P is usually held responsible for B, with the degree of mitigation due to their not knowing that A entails B dependent on circumstances.  Now, Capitalists, beginning with Smith, advocate the cardinal principles 1. that one seek exclusively one's profit, and 2. free market competition.  But, Competition entails both a winner and a loser, or, in an Economic context, both someone who profits and someone who loses.  Thus, the combination of those Capitalist cardinal principles entails that the profit-seeker is responsible for someone's suffering of a loss.  Accordingly, the Capitalist thesis that one is responsible for only oneself is contradicted by the consequences of Capitalist cardinal principles.  The neglect of those consequences is a fundamental ingredient of e. g. contemporary American society, a neglect that, given the general refusal to recognize them, approaches deliberate harm.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

The Value of Competition

As has been previously discussed, while Smith and more recent Capitalists each hold Competition in high esteem, their reasons for doing so are not the same.  For the former, the value of Competition is as offering variety as a corrective to Monopoly.  For the latter, Competition spurs an increase in the quality of a product.  However, each also seems to over-value it.  For Smith, the relation of Competition to Monopoly is analogous to that of Democracy to Monarchy, but just as there have been Presidents who are inferior to some Kings, Competition is no guarantee of a superior product to that of a Monopoly.  Nor does it seem easy for a contemporary Capitalist to argue that there is a one-to-one correspondence of Quality to commercial success, the Highest Good of their Free Market.  Furthermore, there is a notable exemption from Competition that all Capitalists seem to respect--when a patent is involved, e. g. for a product or for a manufacturing process.  For, when a producer has such a patent, the market is exclusively theirs, and how beneficial that status is to Demand might depend entirely on the degree of benevolence of the producer, a characteristic not promoted by Capitalism.  So, Competition is not quite the unconditional Good that Capitalists, of one sort or the other, often seem to take it to be.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Competition and Division of Labor

The prefix 'com' means 'together'.  Accordingly, most literally, to 'compete' means to 'seek together'.  Thus, 'competition' is, most literally, between collective rivals.  Now, within a competing collective, there can be only cooperation, not competition.  Likewise, according to Smith, the governing internal principle of the productive process is, insofar as it involves a plurality, is Division of Labor, not Competition.  So, if the competitors are Nations, as in an inter-National Free Market, then the governing domestic principle is Division of Labor, not Competition.  And, if the human species happened to be in competition with, say, another terrestrial species, or a race from another planet, then their internal governing principle would be Division of Labor, not Competition.  So, the concept of a Cosmo-Economics, i. e. involving all humans, exposes the contradiction in Capitalism between Competition and Division of Labor, and hence, the inadequacy of that system to that scope.

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Free Market, Competition, Profit, Loss

The Surplus-Value that a Good has acquired in the Labor process becomes Profit once it is sold.  On the other hand, if it is not sold, its Surplus-Value remains unactualized, so the investment in it is lost.  Thus, in a Free Market, consisting in Competition, there are both Profits and Losses, with the latter perhaps greater in the case of multiple competitors.  Thus, Free Market principles are inconsistent with both National Wealth-accumulation and the image of a 'rising tide lifting all boats.

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Free Market, Competition, Advertising

Smith projects that the greatest weakness of a Free Market is its susceptibility to Monopoly.  Specifically, in his estimation, this Monopoly is of Supply.  Accordingly, his solution is to promote variety in Supply, the means of which is Competition.  In other words, the currently popular concept of the value of Competition, as consisting in a means to the production of a superior product, is not Smith's.  Furthermore, as is plainly evident, the decisive factor in actual Free Markets is usually advertising, the correspondence to which of product quality is contingent, at best.  Instead, advertising has become the medium of monopolistic forces, so, Smith's greatest concern has been actualized.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Profit-Motive and De-Humanization

It is difficult to conceive how an instinct to de-humanizing behavior could be the basic human principle.  Now, as has been previously discussed, Usury de-humanizes, in more than one way.  So, just as, according to Aristotle, Chrematistic practice is not "natural", Usury is inhuman.  Furthermore, since charging Interest is extrinsic to any benefit to a borrower, it can be the manifestation of only one motivation of the lender--seeking Profit.  Thus, Profit-seeking de-humanizes the seeker, in more than one way.  But, then, it could not be the basic behavioral principle of a human.  Hence, Smith and his followers are profoundly mistaken in their thesis that it is such a principle.  The mistake is an example of a fundamental flaw of Empiricism--interpreting an observed fact as an immutable law, equivalent to interpreting a chronic disease as a 'normal' condition.  Capitalism thus reinforces the interpretation of de-humanizing behavior as 'normal'.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Usury and De-Humanization

'Human' can connote either an internal characteristic of a person, e. g. fallibility, or their membership in the species.  Likewise De-Humanization can consist in the negation of one or the negation of the other.  Thus, Usury--lending at any interest rate greater than 0--is De-Humanizing in two respects.  First, insofar as the practice aims at an increase in wealth for its own sake, it exemplifies Chrematistic behavior, which, as Aristotle proposes, is illustrated by Midas.  In other words, Usury de-humanizes the usurer.  Second, insofar as it involves the gain of a lender at the expense of a borrower, it consists in a dissociation of two members of the species.  Now, the likely argument that borrowing can be beneficial to the borrower, and, hence, is an example of neither of those two respects, is easily refuted by the point that the Interest dimension of the transaction is extrinsic to any benefit, i. e. that a gift or an interest-free loan is sufficiently beneficial.  So, the deeply-entrenched acceptance of Usury at any rate is an indication of the normalization of De-Humanization in a society.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

A Rising Tide and Usury

The phrase 'A rising tide lifts all boats' entails that 'a rising tide' cannot be a Zero-Sum condition.  It seems to connote a period of universal growth, but concrete details are usually lacking when the phrase is uttered.  Nevertheless, one Economic process that it cannot involve is Usury, i. e. lending at a rate greater than 0%.  For, plainly, Usury at any rate is a Zero-Sum transaction, regardless of time-lapse or circumstance, i. e. because gains exactly the increment that borrower repays.  Thus, Usury cannot be part of the kind of period of universal growth signified by the image.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Gestaltism and Cosmo-Economics

The Figure-Ground concept of Gestaltism is useful to Holism, since it can ground the compossibility of Part and Whole in a single Experience, i. e. as foreground to background, e. g. the selective perception of a tree from its forest.  It thus offers an effective argument against Atomism, according to which subsistent Individual entities are given as such.  For example, it provides a reminder that the Sense-Datum that is the foundation of many Empiricisms is arrived at by a process of isolation from a whole experiential background, not discovered as such.  Likewise, the Individual person, including oneself, is given against a backdrop of a society, if not the entire species.  For example, the Cartesian I is the product of not only a series of doubtings, but of the isolation of a room in a building full of other people, etc., the abstraction from which precedes his settling into his chair.  It is similarly applicable to the previously discussed implicit critique of Egoism by Utilitarianism--that self-interested pursuit occurs against a background of General Happiness that gets obscured in the process.  Hence, Gestaltism can be useful in the transition from a Nationalist- to a Cosmo-Economics, in which one's economic activities are conceived by one as part of a global network of production, exchange, etc.

Monday, October 8, 2018

Utilitarianism, Egoism, Altruism

By arguing that selfish motives better promote the General Good than benevolent ones, Smith implicitly acknowledges that there are impulses other than selfish ones.  Thus, his Egoism is normative not descriptive, and, so, diverges from the long tradition according to which even Sympathy is selfish, e. g. on the grounds that it is pleasurable.  Regardless, it is traditional in one respect--it implies that self-oriented behavior and other-oriented behavior are mutually exclusive and antagonistic , an implication that grounds the traditional Egoism vs. Altruism debate.  However, Mill's Utilitarianism challenges that presupposition.  For, he proposes that all behavior aims at General Happiness--a descriptive thesis--which is comprised of the Happinesses of both one's own and that of others.  Hence, on that basis, Selfishness and Benevolence are each special cases of Utilitarian behavior, abstracted from the General calculus, i. e. with the de-emphasised components valued at 0.  In other words, each of those is narrow-minded behavior, and any apparent antagonism is actually contingent and derivative, i. e. in cases when one or the other conflicts with General Happiness.  So, even under Zero-Sum conditions, e. g. when Profit is the specific object of Self-Interest, General Happiness is the goal, according to Mill.  Accordingly, Profit-seeking is subject to the criticism that it is small-minded behavior, as might be, in some cases, Altruism.

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Profit-Motive and Cosmo-Economics

The primary target of Marxism in Capitalism is Exploitation, which is manifested in two ways--Private Property and Division of Labor, which Marx conceives as identical.  However, Private Property is exploitative only if it is income-generating, and, while his example of Husband-Wife Division of Labor might be exploitative, the male-female Division of Labor in the reproductive process is a vital necessity.  Instead, at the root of Capitalist Exploitation is the Profit-Motive, an anomalous, groundless, inessential feature of Smith's concrete system, as has been previously discussed, that Aristotle classifies as Chrematistic, symbolized by Midas.  Accordingly, one of the first tasks of a transition to a Cosmo-Economics is the elimination of the Profit-Motive, rather than concocting some combination of Capitalism and Socialism, as is typical of most advanced Economic systems currently.  For, the entailment by the Profit-Motive of inter-person dissociation has no place in an Organicist concept such as Cosmo-Economics.  Given how deeply entrenched the acceptance of the Profit-Motive has become as either a descriptive or a normative principle, that is no easy task.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Capitalism and the Means to National Wealth

Smith posits three means to National Wealth: 1. Individual Profit-Seeking; 2. Domestic Division of Labor; and 3. Inter-National Laissez-Faire.  Complicating the scheme is that #1 entails 4. Domestic Laissez-Faire, and confusing it is that the thesis 5. National Wealth is the sum of Individual Wealths, is more Bentham than Smith.  In contrast, contemporary Capitalism has reduced to #1 and, hence, also, to the entailed #4.  But, these are the weakest features of the original.  For, both of them remain without proof, and, more important, #1 has been the rationale for the greatest ill of Capitalism--Exploitation.  So, it is difficult to assess what in the historical context are the two concrete innovations of the system--Division of Labor and inter-National Laissez-Faire.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Capitalism and Intention

The Laissez-Faire dimension of Capitalism has its roots in Smith's thesis that the General Good is most effectively promoted by the exclusive focus of each on one's own Self-Interest.  But, despite a continued uncritical acceptance of that formulation, nothing remotely approaching an adequate proof of it has ever been advanced.  Now, one ground for doubting it is that it is internally incoherent.  For, the Individualism that it expresses is an application of Atomism, but Atomism recognizes no General Good other than an aggregate of Individual Goods.  Bentham might accept the latter, but Smith's Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts, as is entailed in his concept of Division of Labor. Another ground for doubting it is that it entails a rejection of a proposition that is elsewhere vital to Smith.  The rejected proposition is that of causal efficacy between an Intention, i. e. to promote the General Good, e. g. through benevolence, and an outcome, i. e. achieving the General Good.  However, that causal efficacy is vital to any supposition of an equivalence between Self-Interested motivation and the successful outcome of that goal.  In other words, a fundamental problem for Smith is that of a lacuna between his Morality and his Economics system based on improved efficiency.  Such a lacuna renders Capitalism susceptible to a deus ex machina supplement, whether an Invisible Hand or the deity of Calvinism, for example.

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Capitalism, Morality, Economics

Capitalists believe that their system is a set of transactions between consenting adults, and, so, should be considered beyond the purview of a Polis, the scope of which is the public realm.  Regardless, because one of the cardinal principles of the system is normative for behavior, it entails a Moral doctrine, and is subject to evaluation on that ground.  Now, the fundamental Moral principle of Capitalism is 'One should always seek to maximize profit.'  Thus, conversely, 'One should never seek to benefit another to one's own disadvantage', a formulation of scholarly interest, since it seems to directly contradict Smith's earlier advocacy of Sympathy.  So, as is, Capitalist Morality is not, contrary to Bentham's ambition, a variety of Utilitarianism, but not because its principle lacks a reference to General Happiness.  Rather, it is anti-Utilitarian because it is a Morality of Intention, not a Consequentialist Morality.  So, without some other premise that links Intention with outcome, e. g. that a deity with causal efficacy, rewards/punishes the motive of action, Capitalism is not even an Economic system of any kind--it is a Moral doctrine.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Capitalism and Chrematistics

As has been previously discussed, Plato conceives Economics as a dimension of a Political system, while Aristotle conceives it as independent of the latter.  In other words, one is what has come to be known as Political-Economy, the other, as Micro-Economics.  On that basis, what is generally known as Macro-Economics, which studies topics such as the Gross National Product, is a variety of Micro-Economics, not of Political-Economy, i. e. because regardless of its National scope, it is still independent of any Political structure.  So, because Wealth of Nations considers no Political Theory, it would seem to qualify as Macro-Economics, not Political-Economy.  However, Aristotle might object to the implication that Smith's system is a variety of his concept of Economics.  For, he sharply distinguishes Economics from Chrematistics, i. e. Wealth as a means from Wealth as an end.  Now, in Smith's system, Profit can be a by-product of a Division of Labor that more efficiently produces Goods, and can be distributed via the Invisible Hand to those in need.  But, he also promotes Profit-seeking for its own sake as the fundamental behavioral principle, as do the majority of his followers.  So, to that extent, Capitalism is, from an Aristotelian perspective, Chrematistic, not either Micro- or Macro-Economics.

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Nationalism and Globalization

Recent U. S. increase in the imposition of tariffs is interpreted by some as a Nationalist reaction against Globalization.  However, both 'Nationalist' and 'Globalization' are ambiguous.  First, Nation can connote either a unity of an internal manifold, or one of a multiplicity of such unities.  But, as has been previously discussed, on the basis of the Atomism in which they are both conceived, the two are incommensurate.  Thus, a domestic Free Market does not entail an inter-National Free Market, thereby entailing the possibility of a conflict exemplified by, as has been previously discussed, the distinction between Mercantilism and Capitalism.  Second, Globalization connotes either a general elimination of local barriers, including National ones, or, as is more commonly the case, specifically Capitalist Globalization, i. e. the recognition of and participation in an inter-National Free Market.  In other words, this recent policy development is a Mercantilist reaction against Capitalism, and not necessarily a Nationalist reaction against Globalization.

Monday, October 1, 2018

Genealogy and Inheritance

In Nietzsche's concept of a Genealogy of Morals, the focus on the latter term has obscured the significance of the former.  A Genealogy is a Natural Form of Temporality, and, hence, a rival to the concept of History.  Now, in the 19th-century, the predominant concept of History is Hegelian, which combines a Kantian Universalist Teleology and Christian Messianism, or, in other words, Dialectical Spiritualism.  So, Dialectical Materialism is its primary alternative.  Thus, Genealogy is a rival to both, but more immediately so to Dialectical Materialism, which can also be classified as Naturalist, as opposed to Supernaturalist, which characterizes Hegel's concept.  Now, the concept of Genealogy is more useful in one respect than Dialectical Materialism to Marxism--it grounds Inheritance, and, hence, the continuation of the private ownership of the basis of all Wealth, i. e. Land.  It thereby shows more clearly than Dialectical Materialism that Inheritance is the foundation of Capitalist exploitation.  That it is also the foundation of social Inequality is missed by American Liberals who want to merely tax Inheritance as a source of income.