Barter and Growth

In Smith's concept of Barter, what is exchanged is a surplus from each party, each of whom thereby gains in the process.  Barter could thus be interpreted as a special case of Communication, if only the concept of Gain that the latter analogously entails were adequately grounded.  But, such grounding is problematic in the absence of a sufficient principle of Growth, which is difficult to establish in a system in which the 'Self' is conceived as a fixed concept, whether on Empiricist or on Rationalist grounds, e. g. as 'Self-Preservation', or as a 'bundle of perceptions', or as 'Cogito'.  In contrast, given a principle of Growth, Communication, Barter, and, subsequently, according to Smith, an increase in general Wealth, thus has an adequate organic basis.

Barter, Division of Labor, Wealth

While Self-Interest, Profit-Seeking, and Competitiveness are each associated with Capitalism, none is the behavioral principle in which Smith actually grounds his system.  Rather, as he plainly articulates at the outset of Wealth of Nations, Economic growth is a function of Division of Labor, which originates in a "propensity to barter" that he observes to be unique to humans.  In other words, as he conceives it, bartering gives rise to specialization, which is organized as Division of Labor, thereby increasing productivity, and, hence, profits.  Thus, any value that he attributes to those Egoistic drives is framed by the context of exchange.  However, one ideal sometimes glorified by some contemporary Capitalists--Self-Sufficiency--is clearly antithetical to Smith's vision.

Competition, Winning, Diversification

According to Smith, the primary value of Competition is to diversify Supply, thereby countering the tendency of monopolistic forces to elevate prices.  Thus, winning per se, is irrelevant to participation.  But, the possibility of winning is essential to the competitive drive.  Hence, there is a discrepancy in his system between the subjective and objective meanings of Competition, indicative of an incoherence, or, perhaps, of an operation analogous to Hegel's 'ruse of Reason', in which a transcendent principle deludes an individual into a course of behavior by presenting it as potentially personally beneficial.  The positing of such a transcendent operation would seem to violate Smith's Empiricist methodology, but no more so than the positing of an Invisible Hand.  In this case, the effects of the purported principle are plainly visible as a diversification of the market.

Competition, Ordinality, Atomism

Inherent in the concept of Ordinality is continuity between and interdependence of its constituents, i. e. First entails the possibility of Second, Third, etc., while each of its successors presupposes the actuality of at least one predecessor.  So, Atomism, the elements of which are discontinuous and mutually independent, cannot accommodate Ordinality, as preeminent Atomist Russell tacitly concedes when he relies on the ordinal Successor Function to generate Numbers.  Now, sports competition can and often does incorporate Ordinality, e. g. First Place, Second Place, etc., corresponding to which are First Prize, Second Prize., etc.  In contrast, the winner-take-all principle that informs competition in Capitalism reflects the inherently limited Atomist orientation of the system.

Competition, Losing, Justice

The widely presumed virtue of Economic competition is that it conduces to the production of better goods.  Hence, implicit in the presumption is the concept of a positive contribution to the result by its losers.  Now, in athletic competition, recognition of that contribution is typically expressed by some proportionate compensation, e. g. a silver medal, a share of a purse, etc.  On that basis, the winner-take-all principle that is common to Economic competition, can be perceived as unust to its losers.

Self-Interest, Sympathy, Competition

As has been previously discussed, in the Sentimentalist Psychological model, there is no essential distinction between selfish and sympathetic pains and pleasures, i. e. either type is privately experienced data. Furthermore, as Hume observes, prevalently evident is that the commonest Morality-significant distinction is between not Self-Interest and Sympathy, but between partial and universal Sympathy. For, virtually everybody identifies with some group or another, family, race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc., while very few conceive themselves and act upon identification with every human being. So, the Self-Interest vs. Sympathy conflict implicated in Capitalism is not derived from the Psychological model it presupposes. Rather, it first emerges in a specific context--Competition, in which the priority of Self-Interest is arguably well-justified. Thus, the problem with the antithesis is not that it is falsely posited, but, rather, that it is groundlessly generalized. Likewise, any associated advocacy of Egoism is weakly grounded.

Sympathy, Self-Interest, Utilitarianism

Even the staunchest advocate of Sympathy as a Moral principle might have difficulty denying that it is as much an intra-psychic datum as is any selfish feeling. Accordingly, the only Utilitarian ground for adjudicating between Sympathy and Self-Interest is on the basis of pursuing pleasure/avoiding pain, i. e. the calculus recognizes no inherent distinction between them. Thus, if there is a systematic incoherence entailed in Smith's promotion of Self-Interest in Wealth of Nations, it is not with respect to his advocacy of Sympathy elsewhere, as some propose. It is as a violation of any subscription to Utilitarian methodology, determination by which is lacking in that promotion. Most of his successors and commentators similarly accept the Sympathy vs. Self-Interest false antithesis at face value.