Utilitarianism, Atomism, Egoism

Insofar as Bentham's Utilitarianism represents Smith's system, Mill's variations potentially entail a divergence from Capitalism.  To begin with, a goal for any action of the greatest happiness for the greatest number implies an overriding of Egoism, though it is unclear if Mill is presenting it as a descriptive, or a normative, principle.  Furthermore, that the formula incorporates a distribution of benefits seems to obviate any role for an Invisible Hand in that regard.  However, Mill's Utilitarianism remains Atomistic--the 'numbers' are an aggregate of independent people, 'happiness' is an aggregate of independent Pleasures and Pains, and the actions that it evaluates are independent performances.  So, behaviors remain uncoordinated, as does the potential set of beneficiaries in each case, thereby still requiring resort to an omniscient distributor of benefits to ensure maximum total Happiness.  Furthermore, Mill's arguably ineffective higher-lower distinction does not address the difference between vital need and non-vital want, which leaves his calculus inadequate to the respective Pleasures in their satisfactions.  So, his formula validates the neglect of the vital needs of a minority in the mass marketing of inessential commodities. In other words, despite its abandoment of Egoism, because of its adherence to Atomism, Mill's Utilitarianism remains implicitly supportive of some Capitalist systems, e. g. the current one of the U. S.