Will to Power, Capitalism, Marxism

While Smith's concept of the ultimate goal of an Economy vacillates between Wealth and Health, i. e. the fulfillment of vital Need, Marx unequivocally promotes the latter.  But, there is no disagreement between them regarding the concept of Need--sustenance, shelter, medicine, etc.  So, Will to Power poses a radical challenge to both of them, by positing that the fundamental Need is to discharge strength, which can be interpreted as Creativity.  Now, this doctrine may be radical, but it is not eccentric.  For, the traditional Will to Live can be conceived as a special case of the Will to Create--as the Will to Re-create--which explains both personal quotidian survival, and species propagation.  The principle is also not lacking in concrete examples--notably the behavior of the Artist, which Nietzsche takes as paradigmatic, rather than that of the barterer or of the factory drudge.  So, the Will to Power does not eliminate the value of Health, rather it subordinates food, shelter, etc. to creative activity as their ultimate goal.  But, it does present a critique to both Capitalism and Marx: regarding the former, it distinguishes idle Wealth from Wealth that is conducive to Creativity, and regarding the latter, it distinguishes mechanical toil from artisanry and craft. More generally, Will to Power does not eliminate Economics, but it re-orders what have usually been taken to be the priorities of an Economic system.

Genesis 3, Clothing, Exploitation

According to Smith, Barter is the distinguishing characteristic of the Human species, while according to Marx, it is the manufacture of tools.  However, each misses a more fundamental distinction--the need to manufacture clothing.  So, Genesis 3 is more accurate in this respect, but for the wrong reason--conceiving that need to originate in shame, rather than as protection against the elements, a problem for Humans that is ignored in that account of the early history of the species.  Now, easily overlooked in the prospect of Leisure that is a primary Economic motive in Capitalism is that it is not exactly a Work-free condition.  Rather, it is a condition in which others do the work.  Accordingly, the Theological interpretation of Leisure as Salvation, rooted in Genesis 3, as has been previously discussed, tends to validate having others working for one so Saved, including, therefore, any exploitation that might be involved.  The role of Religion in buttressing American Slavery notably exemplifies the influence of that inclusion.

Theology, Techne, Laissez-Faire

As has been previously discussed, Genesis 3 has influenced Economics by consigning Work to the status of divine punishment, and, hence, to be transcended in the event of divine salvation, with Economic success along the way a sign of divine encouragement.  Now, while there is no need for Work in Eden, there is no place there for what gets humans banished from it in the first place--Techne.  In contrast, where there is a place for it, where it is of vital necessity is in Work, the effectiveness of which is virtually impossible without Know-How, even at the most primitive level.  Still, Techne remains ultimately taboo, according to this doctrine, especially when the original sin is repeated by its interfering with a divine process.   For example, it is sinful to interfere with the dispensing of divine approval or disapproval via the Invisible Hand.  Hence, the protection of Laissez-Faire policies against government regulation is a Theological battle, according to this tradition.

Will to Power and Work

According to Nietzsche, the Will to Power seeks to discharge strength.  Hence, the accumulation of strength is a preliminary stage of Will to Power.  Thus, for example, as has been previously discussed, spending money is a discharge of strength, with respect to which the accumulation of it is a preliminary stage.  Hence, the treatment of wealth-accumulation as an end-in-itself, e. g. Wealth of Nations, is the product of an abstraction from a natural process.  Likewise, more generally, what is often conceived as an end-in-itself, the fulfilling of vital Need, e. g. eating, sleep, etc., is actually a process of re-vitalization, i. e. energy-accumulation, that is preliminary to the exercise of strength.  Thus, the common concept of sowing as a means to reaping is reversed according to the Will to Power.  Similarly, the priority of Leisure over Work abstracts processes of re-vitalization from their natural context, resulting in e. g. the unhealthful idleness of the wealthy.  So, the paradigm of the Fulfillment-Work relation, according to the Will to Power, is that of the regimen of the athlete, with respect to which the exploitative 'reproducing' of the worker that troubles Marx, i. e. the fulfillment of Need that minimally suffices for returning to work the next day, is a degenerate form.  Thus, while Socialism resolves the contradictions of Capitalism, Will to Power subverts it, by exposing its privileged states as passive, and devaluing them on that basis.

Work and Theology

The term 'Protestant work ethic' is usually taken as a glorification of Work.  However, just the opposite is the case.  The theological root of the status of Work in Protestant societies is the events of Genesis 3, according to which it is a condition of divine punishment, i. e. Work is unnecessary is Eden.  Thus, the attainment of Leisure, i. e. the elimination of the need to Work is interpreted as Redemption.  Now, the Protestant Work Ethic is located within that Theological context, i. e. Work is a means to Redemption, with the success at Work that is a means to achieving Leisure a sign of divine approval.  So, the PWE has functioned not as an opiate of the masses, but as a stimulant, and remains a formidable hindrance to even the most optimistic Socialist vision of universally enjoyable Work.

Socialism and Work

Probably the best reason for not wanting to work is when it is unhealthful, e. g. when it is too physically stressful, when it is tediously repetitious, etc.  Another powerful influence on seeking to avoid it is when one is working for another, as is indicated by an unwillingness to endure difficulties that one might even welcome if they occurred while one was self-employed.  The Exploitation that Marxists target is an instance of that unhappy circumstance, aggravated by the stealing of surplus value that belongs to the worker who is its source.  Now, there are two alternatives to working for another--not working at all, and working for oneself.  Marxism seems to vacillate between the two as a remedy for Capitalist Exploitation, in some cases envisioning technological advances as eliminating the need to work, in others suggesting a concept of Socialism as universal Self-Employment, i. e. in which as a co-owner of the Means of Production, each is effectively working for oneself.  In contrast, Dewey, as has been previously discussed, less equivocally advocates the latter.  Nevertheless, 'socialism' in the U. S. is typically conceived as a passive condition, i. e. as pertaining to economic safety net provisions, e. g. health coverage.  The mixed receptivity to that version of the doctrine is a measure of a potential hostility towards the Dewey's vision of universal enjoyable work.

Socialism, Property, Work

Possession can be defined in terms of Use, i. e. = 'available to use'.  Likewise, Private Property can be defined 'available for exclusive use', and Communal Property the same, minus the exclusivity qualification, e. g. the books in a public library.  Now, abuse is a variety of the User-Used relation, and, in the case of the abuse of a human, can be defined as Kant does--the treatment of another as merely a Means.  Furthermore, Exploitation is a type of Abuse.  Thus, Exploitation can occur, and, hence, can be corrected, independently of Property relations, i. e. can occur after the abolition of Private Property, and, is not corrected by the institution of Socialism.  Thus, Dewey's concept of Class distinction in terms of Leisure vs. Working, defined in terms of User vs. Producer, corrects a shortcoming in the Marxist diagnosis of Exploitation, thereby shifting the locus of Socialism from Property to Work, i. e. in which everybody is both Producer and User.  Marx' Ability-Need formula seems to concur with that shift.

Marxism, Work, Leisure

The status of Work in Marxism is unclear.  On the one hand, Labor is the source of all Value, and each is expected to contribute according their ability.  On the other hand, many passages treat Technology as making Labor obsolete.  Now, a different determination of that status is suggested by Dewey.  He conceives the fundamental Class distinction to be between the Working and Leisure Classes, analogous to the distinction between Means and Ends.  Accordingly, his resolution to the latter--all conduct is both a Means and an End--implies not that Work be eliminated, but that it be made enjoyable, and universalized as such.  So, regardless of whether or not such a resolution is acceptable to a Marxist, it is consistent with Dialectical Materialism, i. e. as a synthesis of conflicting terms.

Wealth, Health, Leisure

Seemingly taken for granted by Smith, and by Capitalists in general, is that Wealth is an end-in-itself.  However, Smith briefly, and perhaps unwittingly, suggests otherwise, when he attributes to the Invisible Hand the power of Wealth-Distribution that meets the Needs of all.  For, implicit in that thesis is the recognition that Wealth is a means to the meeting of Need, i. e. to Health.  Otherwise, he seems to not address the relation of Wealth to Health, perhaps because the benefits in that regard of the affordability of the best food, shelter, medical treatment, etc., are obvious.  However, less inarguably a Good is what may be for some the greatest benefit of Wealth--Leisure.  For, on the one hand, liberation from 'back-breaking' toil in dangerous conditions is Healthful, but on the other, inertia is not, which may be why a simulation of some of the consequences of physical labor, e. g. a well-defined physique and a tan, have in recent centuries become staples of Leisure-time activity in some cultures.  So, insofar as Leisure is the ulterior motive of the pursuit of Wealth, Capitalists may be misguided in taking the benefits of the latter for granted.

Marxism, Capitalism, Work

While it is clear what Marx means by "one's need", it is less so by "one's ability".  Now, it seems likely that it is a reference to Work, and, in the context of the formulation, mandatory Work.  However, 'one's ability' signifies 'personal skill', so it is not a reference to anonymous drudgery.  In other words, it is not necessarily a reference to an interchangeable part of a mechanistic division of labor.  Hence, it likely signifies a concept of Work that he envisions as a consequence of the technological liberation from drudgery, a concept which he and other pioneering Marxists often cite.  It is thus also consonant with Smith's concept of bartering artisanship upon which his original concepts of Market and Division of Labor are based.  However, it is the qualification "from each" that is likely offensive to some Capitalists.  For, it means that everybody must work, including wealthy idlers and reapers of the benefits of the Labor of others.  So, if Dewey correctly identifies Leisure as the highest Good of the upper classes in Capitalism, then even if "from each according to one's ability" is no obvious violation of Capitalist theory, it presents a threat to some Capitalists in practice.

Collectivism, Individuality, Personality

At first glance, as has been previously discussed, 'From each according to one's ability, to each according to one's need' seems to have a simple 'from A to B' structure, but, in fact, is the more complex, 'from A to B, and from B to C', with B = some Collective.  Accordingly, the formula is interpreted by many Capitalists as an expression of the suppression by Marxism of Individuality.  Perhaps the formula does challenge Individualism, though only because that interpretation ignores the "each" in both clauses, which signifies, more distinctive than Individuality--Personality.  Furthermore, it cannot avoid ignoring it, since the Logic of Capitalism is Atomistic, according to which any Totality either suppresses any differentiation, or else is a mere nominal aggregate of Individuals.  Hence, the concept of 'each' is precluded by the concept of a Collective.  In contrast, the concept of Organism entails both, and, is implicit in Marx' formulation, though the status of the concept in Dialectical Materialism is unclear.

Need and Fulfillment

There have been three main Capitalist objections to Marx' 'to the needs of each' formula.  First, on the basis of Smith's original, it constitutes interference with the functioning of the Invisible Hand in that capacity.  Second, on the basis of the primary Theologization of Capitalism, it violates the will of the deity according to which unfulfilled Need is divine punishment.  Third, from the perspective of the Capitalism that jettisons the Invisible Hand, the fulfillment of Need is the sole responsibility of the Needy.  Now, at least one cardinal Marxist principle seems to implicitly agree with the latter.  For, if what is reaped belongs to the sower--as is entailed in the Labor theory of Value that is the basis of the charge that Capitalism is inherently exploitative--then the fulfillment of Need independent of any Labor is groundless.  So, that ground can only be some Moral principle that transcends and, perhaps, informs his Economic doctrine, a principle that is also recognized by Smith, but not by other Capitalists.

Ability, Need, Collective

Because of its 'from-to' frame, Marx' formulation 'From each according to one's ability, to each according to one's need' seems, at first glance, to propose an individual sowing-reaping correlation.  However, upon closer examination, the two clauses are severed, with reaping determined independently of what one has sown.  But, that, too, is a superficial analysis.  For, the context is Collectivist, i. e. sowing and reaping are both collective activities, so there is a correlation between them, just not an individual proportioning.  Thus, the formula is contrary to standard Capitalism in two ways.  First, it represents behavior that cannot be reduced to an Egoist principle, and second, it distinguishes vital Need from elective Want.

Rationality, Ability to Pay, Need

Marx' formula, 'From each according to one's ability, to each according to one's need' has no obvious derivation from Dialectical Materialist Rationalism.  Nevertheless, it is perhaps potentially more subversive of Capitalism from anything derived from that principle.  Now, while it may seem Utopian and unrealistic, there are actually not too uncommon illustrations of one instantiation of it.  The instantiation is a simple purchase, in which one pays what one can and takes what one needs, a practice not too unusual in contexts such as co-ops.  The significance of such a transaction is that it defies all concepts of 'rational' behavior that are ingredient in Capitalist theory, beginning with any thesis that Profit-seeking is the fundamental drive of human behavior.  So, implicit in Marx' formula is an alternative to Capitalism that may also be an alternative to Marxist Socialism.

Invisible Hand and Wealth-Distribution

As has been previously discussed, Smith envisions the Invisible Hand as effecting a distribution of Wealth that benefits everybody in a nation, aka his Trickle-Down clause.   However, it seems to difficult to find any examples of a concrete actualization of that vision in subsequent centuries.  Instead, there have been four main modifications that remain otherwise true to his system.  First, the limitation of the scope of the benefit is attributed to a divine will that rewards and punishes.  Second, the distribution is augmented with charitable giving.  Third, the distribution is augmented with government programs.  Fourth, the distributive function of the Invisible Hand is simply eliminated.  Also, occasionally it is argued that, contrary to appearances, everyone is indeed being adequately served by the Invisible Hand.  Now, contemporary American politics is constituted by these five variations of Smith's vision and their various conflicts, usually with no explicit awareness of their origins in Smith's system.  And, on the periphery of American society, though more central in others, is a more radical response--the repudiation of Smith's other premises, as well.

Rationality and the Distribution of Wealth

While the common uses of 'rational' and 'ration' seem unrelated, the term 'analogy' suggests a common origin, i. e. 'logos', Greek for 'reasoning'.  Accordingly, the splitting of 'proportionality' from 'inference' is a subsequent development of an original radial concept of the Ground-Consequent relation, i. e. Inference is typically conceived as merely linear.  So, a distribution that is based on proportionality is, as the term 'ration' connotes, as rational as any deductive process.  Hence, when Smith attributes to the Invisible Hand the power of transforming the self-indulgent spending of the wealthy into a distribution of "equal portions", he is conceiving it as Rational, regardless of the lack of evidence verifying that attribution.  Nor does Mill's Utilitarianism salvage the putative Rationality of Capitalism, since its Greatest Happiness formula does not distinguish between different distributions of the same quantity of Happiness.  So, the standard concept of 'rationality' in Capitalist theories is well short of the full meaning of the term.

Capitalism, Rationality, Utilitarianism.

As has been previously discussed, whether or not he recognizes it, Passion functions for Hume as a Principle of Sufficient Reason, and, thus, as, in fact, subordinate to it.  Accordingly, his concept of Reason that he subordinates to Passion, i. e. a Causal connection employed as a Means to an End, is only a limited and localized variety.  Now, Spinoza and Kant are among those who conceive Reason as not merely superior to Passion as an intra-personal faculty, but as a super-personal power that is common to each person.  But, while Smith's Invisible Hand is likewise super-personal, it lacks connection to intra-personal Reason in his system.  So, Mill's Utilitarianism can be conceived as a Rational correction to Capitalism, in which the General Happiness replaces personal Profit-Maximization as the ultimate goal of behavior, though it might include the latter.  Thus, for example, selling a product in order to both turn a profit and benefit a customer does not meet the approval of Smith, but could earn Mill's.

Capitalism and Sufficient Reason

In subordinating Instrumental Reason to Passion, Hume recognizes that it is insufficient as an explanation of behavior.  Instead, it is Passion that suffices in that respect.  Hence, Passion functions for Hume as a Principle of Sufficient Reason, marking him as a Rationalist, perhaps unwittingly.  Now, the Principle of Sufficient Reason in Smith's system appears to be Profit-Maximization, on the basis of which subsequent theorists might be justified in characterizing any such behavior as 'rational'.  But, Smith himself undercuts the sufficiency that he tries to attribute to that motive--whenever he invokes the Invisible Hand.  Nor, does he therefore settle on the latter as his Principle of Sufficient Reason, since he refuses to let it compromise the supremacy of the Profit motive.  But, the unresolved inconsistency between the Profit motive and the Invisible Hand violates any concept of Rationality.  Hence, the attribution of 'rationality' to Profit-Maximization that is common to Capitalist theories is itself irrational--a condition that is not nullified because of a neglect of content that is plainly part of their source.

Rationality and Gambling

As has been previously discussed, merely by virtue of being a means to an end of acquiring a good or service, spending is Rational behavior.  Accordingly, spending money while getting nothing in return seems to qualify as irrational behavior--gambling, for example.  But, to the contrary, the latter well exemplifies Rationality.  For, the concept of Reason involved is Humean, i. e. the Means-End relation is an application of the Cause-Effect relation, and, hence, is a Constant Conjunction, entailing no Certainty.  Thus, Instrumental Reason is fundamentally Experimental Reason, i. e. whether or not an End ensues from a Means is never Necessary, regardless of past regularity.  Likewise, spending can always fail, e. g. the recipient of money grabs it without handing over the bought item, or the good disappoints in one respect or another.  On that basis, therefore, gambling is the quintessence of the Rationality of spending, instances of which include not only playing slot-machines and the lottery, but any investment, as well.

Reason, Spending, Utilitarianism

Instrumental Reason does not only supply a Means to an End, it also helps choose between Means to the same End, e. g. purchasing something, rather than stealing it or manufacturing it oneself.  Sometimes, a choice between Means can appear to be a choice between Ends, e. g. between purchasing a car and purchasing diamonds.  But, actually, in those cases, it is usually a choice between Means, to one and the same End, often Pleasure, which Quantification can facilitate.  Now, Smith proposes that national Wealth, and occasionally a fair distribution of that Wealth, is the ultimate End of Economic behavior, including spending, to which Selfish behavior is the best means.  Thus, his system is not Egoism, but a special case of Utilitarianism, according to which the Egoist option is always the best..  However, while Bentham follows him in conceiving Egoist behavior as the best Means to the Utilitarian End, Mill diverges, suggesting that benefiting others can be a Means to that End.  For example, giving money to charity could lead to healthier, and, thus, more productive beneficiaries, while spending on diamonds might be hoarded by the supplier. Thus, he implicitly challenges any purported kinship of Marginal Utility to his concept of Utility, because the former is usually presented as Egoist in scope, e. g. the value of diamonds vs. the value of water to one and the same person, rather than vs. the value of some vital Good to someone else.  So, Utilitarianism incorporates a more fully developed concept of Reason than simple Egoism, thereby better befitting it to represent more of the dimensions of Reason that spending involves.

Rationality and Spending

The concept of 'rationality' that is a staple of contemporary Economics is rarely defined, but their Capitalist orientation, a system rooted in British Empiricism/Sentimentalism, suggests that it is most likely Humean, rather than Spinozan, Kantian, or Hegelian.  In other words, Reason is most likely implicitly Instrumental in these works.  Accordingly, the 'rationality' of behavior is independent of any End that it seeks.  Hence, if, as seems to be generally accepted, Profit-Maximization is 'rational', it is so only by virtue of being the goal of some Means, e. g. hard work, investment, deception, etc., i. e. because Selfishness of any variety is an instinct, and, hence, not a Means to an End.  Likewise, any spending is 'rational' simply by virtue of being a means to acquiring a product or a service, independent of the worthiness of them.  In some cases, such worthiness seems patent, e. g. when vital goods are purchased.  But, in others, the classification of 'rational' behavior seems to stretch the concept, e. g. when money is put towards destructive consequences.  Nevertheless, based on the concept of Rationality as Instrumental, spending money on medicine, on porn, and on a hit man, are equally 'rational'.  Thus, for example, even if Marginal Utility explains why someone might pay for diamonds, it has no bearing on the Rationality of the act, which consists entirely in handing over some money as a means to acquiring them.

Capitalism, Spending, Morality

How one spends one's money is often considered to be above Moral reproach, since, as one's property, one's right to dispense with it as one pleases is unconditional.  Notable exceptions to that stance are the practice of Tithing, and Kant's 'imperfect duty' to help others.  So, Smith's Laissez-Faire attitude falls between the two--it is conditionally so, since it is complemented by the thesis that the Invisible Hand will guide even the most self-indulgent spending equitably throughout society.  It also diverges from his principle elsewhere that one seek Profit in other types of Economic behavior, e. g. production, trade, etc., as a factor in the national accumulation of Wealth. Instead, here he implicitly recognizes that an appropriate distribution of Wealth is a Good, a process for which the Invisible Hand is the best means, with which no spending behavior can interfere. But implicit in that Laissez-Faire is that subject to his Moral disapproval is the withholding of Wealth from public distribution, examples of which likely include hoarding, secreting indefinitely in banks, etc.  On the other hand, bank accounts are Interest-bearing, so holding Wealth meets approval as Profit-Maximization.  But re-investing profits in the enterprise that yields can be classified as either itself Profit-seeking, or discretionary spending, and, hence, as Morally equivocal.  So, the Moral status of spending in Capitalism is muddled.

Will to Power, Invisible Hand, Trickle-Down

According to Will to Power, accumulation and discharge are two phases of one process.  Applied to Economics, it follows that the accumulation of Wealth and its expenditure are, likewise, two phases of one and the same process.  Now, Wealth of Nations, as devoted to the former, seems to present it as self-contained.  However, in the context of Smith's oeuvre in general, that the self-containment is a product of an abstraction is exposed.  For, while in Wealth of Nations, the Invisible Hand functions as a rationale for personal Profit-seeking in the accumulation of Wealth, in the earlier Theory of Moral Sentiments, it functions as a rationale for any, even self-indulgent, spending, i. e. as the source of what has come to be known as Trickle-Down distribution, which it effects independent of how anyone happens to spend their money.  So, this earlier Laissez-Faire attitude towards Expenditure amounts to a dismissal of its relevance prior to his later work, thereby abstracting the scope of Wealth of Nations from it. This abstraction is reflected in the contemporary contrast of the images of the Invisible Hand as an active intervention, and Trickle-Down as a natural process, a distinction that belies their common origin.  So, Will to Power implicitly challenges that popular falsification.

Capitalism and Will to Power

As has been previously discussed, Smith's Egoist principle does not apply to his own presentation of it.  In contrast, one theory that does apply is Will to Power, qua Will to Empowerment.  For, his purpose in Wealth of Nations is to empower his audience to pursue Wealth, by showing them how to do so, including by the formation of Division of Labor, by focusing on Maximization of Profit, by inter-national free trade, etc.  Furthermore, Will to Power explains Economic activity in general--from the technological mastery of natural resources, to the abuse of them and of human Labor.  It also exposes how the system propagated in Smith's book might not be Economics, but Chrematism.  For, just as Will to Power seeks the discharging of Strength, for its own sake, expenditure is a discharge of Wealth, for its own sake.  Accordingly, the accumulation of Wealth is not an end-in-itself, but it is treated as such in Wealth of Nations.  Now, according to Aristotle, the pursuit of Wealth for its own sake is Chrematism, not Economics.  Thus, Will to Power explains Smith's productive behavior, and also exposes a limitation of his product.

Capitalism and Intention

There are at least three systematic problems with the greatly influential passage, from Wealth of Nations, "he intends only his own gain . . . led by an invisible hand to promote an end which is no part of his intention": 1. The positing of the existence of an "invisible hand" violates Smith's Empiricist principles; 2. The rendering of Self-Interest as gain-seeking, rather than the traditional self-preservation, is groundless; and 3. The implicit distinction between intentional and unintentional consequences is indeterminate. But a more fundamental problem is how the passage applies to itself, and to Wealth of Nations, in general.  For, either the book is sophistry designed only to make Smith a lot of money, or else he is violating his own principle--acting with the intention of promoting an end that is well beyond personal gain, i. e. the wealth of his nation, realizable, if at all, well beyond a life-span during which he might enjoy it.  This problem afflicts all Capitalist exposition--by its own principle, it can never signify anything more than self-advertising.

Invisible Hand and Cosmo-Economics

The general acceptance of the premise of the existence of forces inhering in Market activity is clearly reflected in the common practice of using complex algorithms by investors.  Now, the formal structure of such forces and their effects is Synthesis, ranging over a manifold of transactions.  But, entailed in that structure is no delimitation of its scope.  Accordingly, a 'market correction', e. g. a drop in the Dow Jones Average, entails the possibility that the implied inhering force transcends the particular trend, in a particular market, at a particular time.  In other words, it entails the possibility that Market activity is governed as a whole by some ultimate force.  Thus, for example, if there is an Invisible Hand, then its scope must be global and ongoing, not merely National and temporary, as Smith seems to attribute to it.  But, if such a force exists, then Economics is fundamentally Cosmo-Economics, a Holist inversion of prevailing Atomism, calling into question the Egoist premises of Capitalism, as has been previously discussed.

Profit-Motive, Market Forces, Causality

Phrases such as 'Law of Supply and Demand' and 'market correction' signify a cluster of events.  Accordingly, the outcome of one event, e. g. a price paid, is a function of the outcomes of all the others in that cluster.  But, that raises the question of the efficacy of the intention of any participant in an event.  Now, according to Smith, and to most of his followers, that intention either is or should be the maximization of profit.  Lacking in that principle, however, is any causal connection between intention and outcome, or, more specifically, between intention and market forces.  So, a widely-held Theological principle fills that lacuna--that the forces are manifestations of a deity who rewards or punishes on the basis of an intention.  Otherwise, one's intention in any negotiation is irrelevant to its outcome, as is, therefore, the cardinal behavioral principle of Capitalism.

National Economics and Cosmo-Economics

In the Mercantilist era prior to Wealth of Nations, Nationalism is the primary theme, but is the object of study only as applied piecemeal to specific industries.  So, Smith's work is innovative Nationalism insofar as the Nation becomes the fundamental Economic unit.  However, at the same time, it transcends Nationalism, by advocating free inter-national trade, thereby introducing the concept of a global market in which a Nation is only one player.  Now, Marx further promotes Globalist Economics, but both the title and the content of German Ideology suggest a lingering Nationalism.  Furthermore, mainstream Economics generally follows Smith, distinguishing between domestic and foreign spheres of activity.  So, still lacking, and perhaps forthcoming, is a Cosmo-Economics, constituted by a single world-wide market, in which individual persons are the fundamental players, and in which, if factors at all, national divisions are only mediately so, just as City, County, and State might be in a National market.

Self-Interest and Global Market

Smith's advocacy of inter-national free trade implicitly entails the concept of a world community, thereby transcending the prior predominating Nationalist scope of not only Mercantilist Economics, but of Political Philosophy, as well.  At the same time, he undermines the concept of the Citizen-Nation relation that he shares with the latter.  According to that concept, pioneered by Hobbes, and adopted by his successors, the relation is that of Individual-Totality antagonism, which is typically resolved in favor of the latter.  Despite appearances, Smith is no exception--his argument that a wealthy nation is personally beneficial to a citizen, and, hence, is in their self-interest, is essentially the same as Hobbes' defense of a Leviathan.  However, Individuality is a characteristic of each and every person, so if there is a Totality of such Individuals, it is one that transcends Nationality.  Thus, by introducing the concept of a World community, Smith also broaches the reality of that transcendence, thereby undermining not only the Citizen-Nation dynamic at the heart of traditional Political Philosophy, but of his own Economic model, as well. In other words, he fails to consider that his inter-nationalism at the same time locates the self-interested Economic player in that global market, promoting the wealth of all nations, and not necessarily that of their local market.

Self-Interest and National Wealth

Smith recognizes a potential inconsistency between exclusive attention to the pursuit of personal wealth, and the promotion of the wealth of one's nation.  He resolves it by subordinating the latter to the former, despite the title of the book, by arguing that living in a wealthy nation is personally beneficial to any of its citizens.  However, that resolution is unsatisfactory in two respects.  First, he rejects a similar argument when applied to Sympathy, and second, it still entails the possibility of a constraint, in the name of national Wealth, on Self-Interest, that could be actualized as either a government regulation or even a Hobbesian Leviathan.  But, the more fundamental problem is that the concept of Nation is extrinsic to that of a society of self-interested individuals, i. e. of all people, with respect to which a nation is a subset.  Rather, Smith's concept of Nation, and the reason why Wealth of Nations is the title of the book, is that he conceives it primarily as a Laissez-Faire response to the Protectionist Mercantilism that dominates Economic theory in the prior centuries.  Accordingly, the Foreign dimension of his system precedes its Domestic dimension, which is that of the behavior of citizens.  As a result, the two dimensions lack systematization, which he tries to compensate for with an inadequate ad hoc concept of the relation between Self-Interest and National Wealth.

Social Darwinism and Diversity

Social Darwinists are often too concerned with justifying the accumulation of personal wealth at the expense of others to recognize an underlying value shared by Capitalism and Darwinism--Diversity.  In Capitalism, Competition diversifies the Market, and, hence, counters a tendency towards Monopoly.  In Darwinism, Variation is a means towards the generation of superior types.  However, Variation consists in population increase, which, as Malthus argues, strains resources, and, thus, conduces to Scarcity.  Conversely, therefore, population control as a correction to potential Scarcity is counter-productive to Evolutionary processes.  So, the relation between Capitalism and Darwinism is more complicated than it is often conceived to be by Social Darwinists.