Inheritance, Free Market, Species

In a Free Market system that is universal, every transfer of property would be open to competitive demand.  So, even in the closest approximation to that universality, the contemporary American Economic system, Inheritance is exempt from Free Market principles. Thus, this perhaps most private of transactions is beyond the scope of what is commonly conceived to be the Private Sector. Now, Inheritance is a legally sanctioned transaction, e. g. by a Will, and a Will might name someone other than a blood relative as a beneficiary.  But, the foundation of the transaction is revealed when a Will is lacking--the default beneficiary is either a spouse or a blood relative.  Hence, the foundation of this most private of transactions is Biological, i. e. Marriage is traditionally primarily for reproductive purposes.  In other words, Species-interest determines a stratum of private Economic relations that transcends the scope of the Market of the most Capitalist society in the World.

Inheritance and Capitalism

Every human is someone's child, or, perhaps, the creation of a deity.  Accordingly, being related to some other entity is inherent in being human.  Thus, Atomism, which asserts the Externality of Relations, is applicable to human affairs only by abstracting from them.  Now, one Economic relation that is based on the parent-child relation is Inheritance.  So, it is no accident that perhaps the only transaction that accepted by Economic Atomism, i. e. Capitalism, as outside the scope of Market competition and the Invisible Hand is Inheritance.  Marx also seems to miss that Inheritance perpetuates Private Property privilege, starting with Land, the basis of all Means of Production.  Likewise, current debate over Inheritance Tax overlooks the more fundamental problem for Democracy--that Inheritance perpetuates Inequality, thereby making any 'level playing-field', and 'equal opportunity' for children, impossible.

Micro-Economics, Macro-Economics, Political-Economy

A cardinal thesis of Logical Atomism is that all relations between Atoms are mutually external, i. e. that Atoms are essentially independent of one another.  However, a problem with that thesis is that the concept of Externality is itself relational with respect to its point of reference.  Hence, the thesis lacks grounding in the system.  Furthermore, if the system lacks a concept of Externality, then it has none of Internality, either, i. e. because the two are complementary.  Similarly, any concept of Private entails that of Public, and, as has been previously discussed, any concept of Individual Right entails that of a Society against which it is thereby protected.  So, any concept of Private Property Right is derivative from and presupposes a whole of Society.  Hence, the concept of Economics as, since Aristotle, Micro-Economics, i. e. the scope of which is Private Property, even enlarged as Macro-Economics, is groundless.  Instead, it presupposes the concept of Economics as Political-Economy, i. e. as an ingredient in the Polis as a whole, as Plato conceives it, from which it is derived.  On that basis, individual persons are parts of Society, personal property is distributed property, and Micro-Economics or Macro-Economics is a sub-division of Political-Economy.

Economics and Politics

Differences between Plato and Aristotle are prototypes of Philosophical disagreements for the ensuing millennia, e. g. Rationalism vs. Empiricism, including those of Economics.  Probably the most salient of the latter is Collective Property vs. Private Property, but the primary difference is more fundamental.  For Plato, Economic relations are a stratum of the Polis, while for Aristotle they merely constitute a dimension of household management among landowners.  In other words, according to the former, Economics is fundamentally what is now known as Political-Economy, while for the latter, it is fundamentally what is now known as Micro-Economics.  Now, significant confusion is generated by Smith's elevation of Economics to Nationalist scope--structurally, the topic remains Micro-Economics, i. e. it is the scope of the household that has been so elevated, without effecting the status of Economic activity as internal to it.  In other words, Smith elevates Micro-Economics to Macro-Economics, but without transforming it into Political Economy.  Hence, Capitalism, even conceived as Macro-Economics, remains in the Aristotelian tradition, while Marx recovers Plato's original thesis that Economics is the base of which Politics is the superstructure.  Thus, what has becoming the defining tension of contemporary American Politics--Government vs. Private Sector--is a descendant of Platonist Economics vs. Aristotelian Economics.  The general lack of unawareness of the heterogeneous character of that conflict complicates resolving it.

Capitalism, Plutocracy, Democracy

Smith elevates Economics to National status, but without considering the Political ramifications of that scope.  Accordingly, it can only be inferred that he regards the system as not altering the Monarchic principles of his homeland.  In contrast, Marx proposes an inversion of the implicit thesis that Political-Economy is a topic within a Political system--that, instead, the latter is a superstructure at the service of power relations that are rooted in Economic relations.  But, he does not elaborate on how that characterization applies to Capitalism specifically.  If he did, he could easily argue that the title Wealth of Nations speaks for itself--Capitalism is a Plutocratic system.  With that established, the various attempts to equate Capitalism and Democracy, a staple of American life, are simply and decisively refuted by the point that Democracy entails an Egalitarian component, while Capitalism does not.

World, Species, Cosmo-Economics

Smith objectifies the concept of Nation as, at the same time, he surpasses it towards that of a Market of Nations.  Marx continues that extension, as his oeuvre spans the German Ideology and a World of united workers.  But, the Atom of each system is the self-interested person who enters into social relations either by association of or by dialectical resolution.  Thus, the concept of World in each case is derivative, with respect to which that of Nation becomes problematic, as has been previously discussed.  A century or so later, the Organicist model becomes useful to Economics for three main reasons.  First, by according equal value to Whole and Part it eliminates the limitations of reductionist Atomism, of either variety.  Second, it is flexible enough to accommodate Individual, Nation, and World, since a Whole of Parts, e. g. a Nation, can itself be also conceived, without contradiction, as a Part of a Whole, e. g. of a World.  Finally, the Organicist model is Biological, and, with the emergence of Evolutionism, the Species becomes a fundamental Biological unit, the habitat of which is the World.  Hence, that model is adequate, perhaps uniquely so, to the relation between the World and any of its parts.  In other words, third, the Organicist model is adequate to, and perhaps necessarily so, the completion of the extension of Economics from the Nation to the World, i. e. to a Cosmo-Economics.

Cosmo-Economics, Capitalism, Socialism

Both Capitalism and Socialism have had Cosmo-Economic strains.  Current Globalism is an example of the former, and the 'Workers of the world unite!' slogan is an example of the latter.  However, neither has been successful in co-ordinating that theme with given entrenched Nationalism, e. g. the discontents of the EU and the adverse reaction to NAFTA, in the case of the former, and the break-up of the Soviet Union, in the latter.  Underlying these failures is a conceptual problem that neither doctrine can adequately address.  For, the relation between Nation and World is heterogeneous, i. e. neither can be reduced to each other, but Capitalism and Socialism are systematically constrained to offer only reductionist unifications of them.  Each is a variety of Atomism, either Analytic or Dialectical, so a World can be only either a manifold of Individuals or a Totality, respectively.  Hence, neither can accommodate a distinction that is intermediate between Individual and Totality.  In contrast, Organicism is a system that can and does preserve the distinction between Parts and Whole.  So, any Cosmo-Economics requires an Organicist model that, as is,  transcends both Capitalism and Socialism.

Domestic Free Market and Inter-National Free Market

Another source of significant confusion in the history of Capitalism is that the system has included two Markets--one domestic, one inter-National, the latter the focus of Wealth of Nations, the former the focus of contemporary varieties.  But, neither distinction is rigidly maintained--Smith often speaks of domestic Economics as governed by Free Market principles, while contemporary jingoism often effects a closing of domestic Economic ranks.  Consequently, Moral confusion often afflicts Capitalism.  For, the fundamental behavioral principle of a Free Market is the Profit-motive, which is inappropriate in a Division of Labor, i. e. while one minds one's own business in that context, one is still dependent on the well-being of others, and, so, one's Self-Interest requires that one help them, and not that one attempt to take advantage of them.  Likewise, in the context of any inter-National hostilities, the Free Market principles that normally govern domestic affairs in e. g. contemporary America, are counter-productive.  For example, in recent events, NAFTA has weakened at least some of the domestic U. S.  Economy, while tariffs--which are strictly speaking Mercantilist, not Capitalist--are designed to strengthen it, with resulting Political and Moral confusion that is neither recognized nor addressed by politicians of any orientation.  The fissures in the EU are also at least in part a reflection of the confusion.

Profit-Motive, Descriptive, Normative

As has been previously discussed, the concept of Capitalism has varied over the centuries.  Still, common to them is the principle of Profit-seeking individual behavior.  However, unresolved, and not even addressed, is whether that principle is descriptive, or is normative.  Now, in contemporary Capitalism, that it is descriptive seems to be taken for granted.  Likewise, Smith seems to treat it as a natural instinct in Wealth of Nations.  However, in the absence of an explanation of his previous recognition of Sympathy as a natural instinct in the context of his later model, e. g. that he now repudiates that position, Profit-seeking cannot be accepted as descriptive, i. e. as a sufficient explanation for all behavior, and, hence, as a given fundamental behavioral drive.  For, if both Profit-seeking and Sympathy are natural instincts, then only a Normative principle can elevate one over the other.  Accordingly, as is, the status remains uncertain, at best. In contrast, an analysis that is independent of the status of Sympathy, internal to Wealth of Nations, is more decisive.  For, there, Smith recognizes the Labor theory of Value, which entails that Labor is the source of Surplus-Value, and, hence, of any Profit.  Thus, Profit is sufficiently explained as an integral feature of his system independent of its being derived from a Profit-motive, e. g. Profit is a by-product of any motive to transform raw material, whether a Will to Survive or a Will to Power.  Accordingly, an explicit Profit-motive, i. e. seeking it for its own sake, is not a natural instinct, and, so, can be promoted only as a Normative principle.  That conclusion is of significance in not only a scholarly context: it exposes the taking for granted in contemporary politics, e. g. American, of the Profit-motive as a natural instinct as dogmatic, and, hence, as a potential weapon of repression.

Wealth of Nations and Capitalism

Smith himself does not use the term 'Capitalism', and whether or not it correctly characterizes Wealth of Nations depends on how it is defined.  The term first emerges subsequent to Marx' phrase "capitalist mode of production", which signifies primarily the private ownership of the means of production.  Now, though the latter does apply to a development of what Smith envisions, it is not an explicit feature of his model, so the term is not especially instructive as a classification of the work.  'Capitalism' is more accurate there if it is defined as 'the thesis that human behavior either is or should be determined by the seeking of Profit".  On the other hand, defined, as is currently connoted, as 'a system that aims at the generation of personal Wealth', it is not at all an accurate characterization of Wealth of Nations, as the title alone suggests.  Furthermore, almost completely lost in the contemporary concept of 'Capitalism' is one of Smith's two innovations--Division of Labor.  So, in relation to Wealth of Nations, 'Capitalism' is perhaps most instructive as signifying how a concept can stray from its ancestor, as is also the case with 'Socialism' and 'Communism'.

Division of Labor and Self-Interest

Scholars have, with justification, cited the relation between Sympathy and Self-Interest as the fundamental inconsistency in Smith's oeuvre, one resolution of which is based on their appearances decades apart, e. g. that the later supplants the earlier.  Regardless, there is a similar at least apparent inconsistency in the later work itself--between the advocacies of Division of Labor and Self-Interest.  Now, one resolution of that is that emphasis on the latter principle has been taken out of context, as a result of further historical developments.  In that history, his system begins as a response to Mercantilism--to a policy of Protectionism for unconnected domestic industries.  His alternative is the coordination of domestic industries, i. e. 'Division of Labor', and the elimination of Protectionism, i. e. transition to an inter-Nationalist Free Market.  But, then, Marxism, while continuing the breaking down of Nationalist barriers, advocates the abolition of Private Property.  So, it is in the context of a response to Marxism, that the Self-Interest principle becomes the defining characteristic of Smith's program, overshadowing the status of the Nation, with its coordination of domestic industry, as its original orientation.  The subsequent triumph of that eclipse is signified by the unrecognizability of the Mercantilism of protectionist tariffs in contemporary hyper-Individualistic American 'Capitalism'.  But, a threat to Private Property is not a concern of Wealth of Nations.  Instead, Smith is likely more modestly proposing that working in the context of a Division of Labor is an effective means to self-interested goals, with the proviso that one not concern oneself with what one's colleagues are doing.

Profit and Will to Power

Smith and Marx agree that the ultimate basis of all Profit, that can be further supplemented in the Exchange process, is the Surplus-Value of a Good that is the product of the Labor that transforms it from raw material.  Now, as has been previously discussed, Smith's equating Profit-seeking with Egoism seems an arbitrary departure from the traditional concept of the former as Survival-seeking.  However, Will to Power can adequately ground Smith's thesis.  For, the transformation of raw material into a usable Good involves a discharge of strength--the imposition of a new Form on the material--with the profiting from which in an Exchange a not necessarily deliberate consequence, that Smith makes deliberate.  So, Smith's supplanting of Survival-seeking by Profit-seeking can be understood as implicitly anticipating Nietzsche's supplanting of Will to Live as Will to Power.

Capitalism and Free Market

The concept of 'Free Market' in Capitalism is ambiguous, since in at least Smith's pioneering version, there are two Markets--National and inter-National--that are incommensurate, because the goal of National Wealth divides them.  Now, Smith's primary interest in Free Marketism is as a counter to Protectionist Mercantilism, i. e. as inter-Nationalist, with an extension to domestic Markets less clearly delineated, i. e. the distinction between Laissez-Faire in Wealth-accumulation, and in Wealth-distribution, two different processes, is not sharply drawn.  Current evidence of the persistence of the confusion is an emphasis on domestic de-regulation combined with the general unawareness that protectionist tariffs are Mercantilist, not Capitalist. In any case, there have been three different grounds of a defense of Free Market principles: 1. Reverence for some inherent mechanism; 2. The Right to privately transact; and 3. Efficiency in National Wealth-accumulation.  But, Capitalism is a Means to National Wealth-accumulation.  Thus, the only one of three that is relevant on Economic grounds is #3, i. e. #1 has a Theological origin, and #2 draws upon a Political principle.  Likewise, counter-arguments such as the contention that Free Market Capitalism is exploitative is primarily directed elsewhere: at the goal of the system, i. e. that the priority of Wealth is potentially de-humanizing is extrinsic to Free Marketism qua Means.  So, the only sound internal critique of Free Marketism is one that demonstrates its shortcoming in that function.  One version of that critique, for which conclusive evidence seems to be lacking, is that a regulated domestic Market is a better Means to National Wealth-accumulation than an unregulated one. But another may be more persuasive--when Free Market Profits are negated by collateral Losses.  A specific example of that negation is the increase of health-care costs as a consequence of an unregulated tobacco industry.  The more general one is that Loss is the correlate of any Gain in a Market that is Zero-Sum.  So, at minimum, the advocacy of Free Market Capitalism is typically superficial and short-sighted, while the opposition to it tends to miss a ripe target.

Laissez-Faire and Individual Right

The latent basis of Laissez-Faire principles is easier to expose when the doctrine is expressed as 'Free Market' principles.  In that formulation, 'Freedom' is ascribed to Market processes, perhaps to the Invisible Hand.  But, the common invoking by Free-Marketers of a Private-Public distinction--to defend private transactions from public interference--points to the ground of that 'Freedom'.  For example, attempts to regulate the tobacco industry have been often challenged on the basis that what they intrude upon is a consensual relationship between seller and buyer.  In other words, if there is a decisive Freedom in such a transaction, it is that of the buyer, i. e. to decide whether or not to accept the risks of tobacco use, as well as that of the seller.  Accordingly, regulation of the selling of those products is a Public violation of the Right to sell them in a Private context.  Now, that argument becomes minimized by the further evidence of harmful effects of the product that exceed that context, e. g. second-hand exposure, general medical and insurance costs, etc.  But, as is, it reveals the basis of the Freedom attributed to the Market by Laissez-Faire principles--that of individual participants to seek Profit.  In other words, it is derived from the concept of Individual Right that is a staple of Modern Political Philosophy.

Techne, Profit, Laissez-Faire

Smith's concrete innovation is Division of Labor, which he conceives to be the motor of Wealth-accumulation.  That concept is combines two theories: 1. Profit is derived from the Surplus-Value of a commodity, the source of which is the Labor by which raw material is transformed into a usable product; and 2. Labor is more efficient when sub-divided into specialized components. So, the Profit-motive is a factor in the first, and the Invisible Hand is no factor at all.  Now, the Profit-motive is also a factor in the sales or exchange of a product, i. e. to receive back as much as possible.  But, the Market may be a Zero-Sum game, so, Profit derived therein in itself does not contribute to the Wealth of a Nation, and insofar as the Invisible Hand distributes the accumulated Wealth of such traders, it is merely correcting the unbalance created by the transaction.  So, in Smith's program, Techne is involved only in the application of a plan for greater efficiency, for the purpose of generating greater profits.  In contrast, the Invisible Hand is completely impracticable, whether or not it actually exists.  Thus, Laissez-Faire policy has only one Technical function: to protect the maximization of personal profits from concrete corrections that are designed to themselves protect potential victims of such profiting, e. g. asthma sufferers from industrial pollution.  So, any Theological ground for a Laissez-Faire policy, i. e. that it is the divine Invisible Hand that it is protecting, mis-conceives what is actually threatened by regulation.

Techne, Capitalism, Marxism

Techne is Know-How, i. e. the application of knowledge of a Causal relation to the securing of an End.  In other words, it combines Theory and Practice, the obviousness of which makes the long history of the separation and, perhaps, antagonism, of them a bit of a mystery.  Now, the involvement of Techne in Economics has generally gone unrecognized, primary because Capitalism and Marxism each entails a super-personal  component--the Invisible Hand and the Materialist Dialectic.  But, as such, each is a Theory, that gets applied to Practice.  For, as has been previously discussed, Revolution is the Materialist Dialectic applied to the elimination of the causes of Exploitation.  Likewise, Capitalism combines the individual pursuit of Profit, and the Invisible Hand, as a means to the accumulation and distribution of Wealth, as is quite clear from Smith's writings.  In other words, Laissez-Faire is conceived as a Causal factor in the formulation of the Theory that gets applied to a certain End, a rival of Theories of the Effects of regulation in that Practical context.  So, Economics is, in all such cases, even when constituted by mathematical equations, a product of Techne, i. e. a program or doctrine, not a Theory.

Dialectical Materialism, Revolution, Techne

One of the apparent systematic uncertainties of Marxism is the status of Revolution--a moment in a super-personal Dialectic of History, or a product of purposive human action.  One resolution is to recognize Dialectical Materialism as itself a moment in a more comprehensive Dialect--that of Theory and Practice, the Synthesis of which is Techne.  For example, cooking is the synthesis of knowledge of the properties of Fire, and the goal of satisfying hunger.  Similarly, therefore, Dialectic Materialism is a law of Nature which is applied to the elimination of Capitalist Exploitation, i. e. Revolution.  This resolution also exposes a further uncertainty of Marxism--the post-Revolution status of Dialectical Materialism.  Three possibilities are: 1. Socialism as a final totalization of society eliminates it permanently; 2. The ever-present possibility of backsliding from that harmony requires it as an ever-present correction; 3. The concept of Socialism as Permanent Revolution, sometimes spoken of, but usually only vaguely.  Now a fourth involves Techne--putting the laws of Dialectical Materialism to constructive use, a possibility that seems to remain unexplored.  Still, as is, qua Theoretical component in the Dialect of Techne, made Practical in the process of Revolution, Dialectical Materialism surpasses its Capitalist correlate--the Invisible Hand--which remains an unharnessed Law in that system.

Marxism, Holism, Contingency

The passage in the German Ideology in which Marx-Engels tout the freedom to "hunt", "fish", and "rear cattle", as one of the benefits of Socialism, is interpreted by some as an expression of Psychological Holism, a remedy for the fragmentary specialization forced upon a person by a Capitalist Division of Labor.  Now, while that goal might be appealing in some contexts, it is flawed in two respects.  First, it presupposes that Specialization cannot be natural, and, hence, that a talented artist, for example, might not continue to concentrate on one activity given the freedom to do so.  Second, the concept of Psychological Holism presupposes that transcending an achieved completeness is not a fundamental drive, e. g. a Will to Evolve.  Marx is keenly aware of the historical contingency of a concept of 'human nature'.  But, if he and Engels do indeed advocate Psychological Holism, then it, too, can be only as a contingent goal.

Capitalism, Socialism, Co-operativism

"Workers of the world unite!" may be the rallying cry of Marxism, but in passages such as "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening", from the German Ideology, the ultimate goal of the doctrine is the same as that of most varieties of Capitalism--the Leisure of the Individual.  In other words, in Marxism, any Fellowship of Work is a mere means, i. e. Class Consciousness is a stage en route to a Class-less Society.  Marxists, thus, do not consider that Creativity and Sociality are ends-in-themselves, the drives towards which are instinctual.  Accordingly, like most varieties of Socialism, Marxism collectivizes Property, but not activity.  Thus, in contrast, is what can be called Co-operativism, based on the example of a Co-op, which collectivizes both Property and Work, with both dimensions of equal value.

Self-Sufficiency and Fellowship of Work

At Genesis 2:18, God says that "It is not good that man should be alone", and proceeds to create a woman that only later Adam calls Eve.  God thus violates the principle of 'creation in his image', since as monotheistic, he is alone.  Likewise, Individuation does not preclude the possibility of a complementary Association.  Hence, an instinct towards Self-Sufficiency is inherently insufficient to satisfy any instinct towards a Fellowship of Work.  Now, Smith somehow fails to recognize the latter when he overlooks that a Division of Labor presupposes an Organization of Labor.  Marx, too, overlooks that presupposition, as well as the possibility that Class Consciousness is derived from an instinct towards an Association of activity.  Accordingly, his concept of Socialism consists in a collectivization of Property, a passive condition, but not in a Fellowship of Work.  So, the latter remains unrepresented in the main Economic debates of the past several centuries, i. e. it is entailed by the goals of neither Wealth, Leisure, Self-Sufficiency, nor the abolition of Private Property, though it is commonly exemplified in some Co-ops.

Individuality and Self-Interest

The concept Individual, commonly taken as given as such, is a two-fold product.  Originally a Quantity, it becomes a Substantive only by virtue of an abstraction, e. g. from individual human to 'the Individual'.  Furthermore, as a Quantity, it is the product of a derivation from some Universal, i. e. of Individuation.  Accordingly, if there is any inherent Economic tendency of someone qua Individual, it is towards Self-Sufficiency, i. e. towards being separate from others, not towards Survival, which is a tendency qua living being.  Similarly, if there is any Economic tendency inherent in Selfishness, it is towards Self-Sufficiency, not towards Profit.  Now, Profit could be in one's Self-Interest, but only as a means towards Self-Sufficiency.  However, Economic Self-Sufficiency entails that one has no needs beyond those satisfied by sowing what one has reaped.  In other words, Self-Sufficiency requires Work.  Hence, Profit for its own sake, or Profit as a means to Leisure, is inherently contrary to Individuality.

Leisure and Self-Sufficiency

A life of Leisure is not necessarily one of independence.  For, someone who is wealthy enough to no longer need to work usually still must rely on others for goods and services, e. g. a grocer and a car mechanic.  In other words, Leisure is not equivalent to Self-Sufficiency.  But, if there is a conatus that inheres in the concept of Individuality, it is that of Self-Sufficiency.  Thus, the dogmatism of Smith's groundless representation of Egoism as Profit-seeking, rather than, say, the more traditional Survival-seeking, suppresses a more systematically coherent further alternative.  In other words, Individualism and Capitalism are not as synonymous as they are usually taken to be in the U. S.

Land and Leisure

Marx' concept of Means of Production includes not only the machinery involved in a manufacturing process, but the building in which the machinery is located, and the land on which the building stands.  So, the semantic awkwardness of the term 'means of production' in the cases of the latter two facilitates for him the general formulation--Exploitation is enabled by the distinction between the owner of the Means of Production and the Laborer using the Means of Production--that includes not only the relation between manufacturer and waged machine operator, but also that between plantation owner and slave.  This hierarchy of Exploitation implicitly inverts the status of Land as the basis of all Wealth, and that of Rent as the fundamental source of all Profit, i. e. starting with the renting of Land for use of its raw materials, for a place to do business, etc.  Hence, transcending mere Leisure as the pinnacle of Capitalist success is Leisure that is also profitable--embodied by the Land-owner.

Work and Fellowship

From its inception in Smith's system, the cardinal psychological principle, Profit-seeking, is normative, though frequently presented as descriptive.  The lapses in this dogmatism are usually expressed as attempts to explain away sympathetic instincts, e. g. that they are themselves Egoistic, when the only argument against Sympathy that is relevant to the Capitalist enterprise might be that it is counter-productive to Wealth-generation.  But Profit-seeking and Sympathy do not exhaust the possible motivational factors in Economic behavior.  A third is what can be called Fellowship--the enjoyment of working with others for its own sake.  Now, Fellowship is a motivator the existence of which the Capitalist can neither deny nor reduce to Sympathy.  Nor does the Egoist Profit-motive sufficiently explain collaboration as a mere means to personal Gain, though it might apply as such to the behavior of some.  So, Fellowship in Work presents a problem for the doctrine according to which Work is an ontological Punishment from which Leisure is the Salvation.

Work and its Discontents

A familiar scene in contemporary American life is someone winning the lottery, and then promptly quitting their job.  One aspect of such scenes is onlookers who insist that even if they did win the lottery, they would not quit the job.  Thus, there is evidence of a distinction between Work that is in itself enjoyable, and that which is endured merely as an end to remuneration.  Now, study of that distinction seems to be lacking, so there is available neither hard numbers  of the comparative incidence of the two types, nor reasons why work is enjoyable for its own sake.  But the latter can be reasonably speculated about--such activity involves skill and/or is socially satisfying.  So, even one exemplification of that possibility disproves Smith's cardinal thesis that Profit is the fundamental motivation to Work, and the more of them that there are, the wider the discontent of having to Work under conditions that are determined by that thesis.  In other words, having to work among those who fundamentally dislike what they are doing is a psychological drag on those who enjoy what they do.

Work and Job

Rarely considered in what is often taken to be the 'science' vs. 'religion' conflict is contrasting examples of concepts of Work.  In Newtonian Physics, Work is a Force that moves an object from one location.  In Genesis 3, Work is the exertion of Adam and Eve that transforms fig-leaves into girdles.  Thus, one kind of Work is a type of Efficient Causality, while the other is a type that is not recognized in that theory--Formal Causality.  Accordingly, another contrast is that the former kind is part of a mechanistic chain of Efficient Causes, while the latter involves some degree of personal autonomy.  Now, what in contemporary life is often connoted by 'work', namely 'a job', in many cases, is an activity of the first kind--part of a chain of mechanistic forces, while in many others, involves some degree of creativity.  So, if 'work' has a negative connotation to someone, it is likely that their job is of the first kind, and, if it has a positive connotation, it is likely that it is of the second.  Similarly, insofar as Work is conceived as a punishment in the Theological tradition that is based on Genesis 3, it has strayed from its original meaning.

Creativity and Work

There are two important conflicts between, on the one hand, Genesis 1, and, on the other, Genesis 2-3.  One conflict is plain: two accounts of the creation of the human species, while the other is revealed by analysis: two accounts of how humans acquire divine know-how, i. e. in the one case, the ability is part of 'in his image', in the other, it is via the eating of forbidden fruit.  Both passages are well-represented in the cultures that have been influenced by the Theological tradition that is based on them.  But, while the first is usually specified only to defend the tradition against the Evolutionist alternative, the second has been concretely powerfully determinant, in three main ways: 1. the establishment of sexual mores; 2. the definition of relations between men and women; and 3. the validation of inequality and exploitation in Economic relations, which Marx believes is a generalization of #2.  Now, regardless of whether or not the few attempts, e. g. Kabbalism, to reconcile Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are sound, or are merely apologetics for some social status quo that is derived from the latter, a doctrine that bypasses G 2-3 can be derived directly from G 1.  For example, from the concept of a deity as a creator, and that of humans as created in its image, humans are fundamentally creative beings.  Accordingly, Work can be conceived as a type of Creativity, on a par with that of procreativity and that of artistic genius, with respect to which mechanical drudgery is a degenerate, not paradigmatic, form.  Thus, in a culture based on a Theology of what can be called Creativism--not to be confused with Creationism--Work is fundamentally to be enjoyed, not escaped from or eliminated, as is its statuses in some versions of Capitalism and Marxism, respectively.

Creativity, Techne, Knowledge of Good and Evil

In the beginning, the deity of Genesis is clearly characterized as a Creator.  So, insofar as he creates humans 'in his own image', they, too, are, first and foremost, creative beings.  Now, the Knowledge involved in creating is Techne.  Hence, Techne is a fundamental characteristic of both the deity of Genesis, and the humans that he creates, a shared characteristic that is exemplified in Genesis, as has been previously discussed, by the clothing-making skills of both God and Adam and Eve.  So, whatever is meant there by "knowledge of good and evil", a term popularly taken to signify sexual activity, is within the context of Creativity and Techne.  Now, God's comment at 3:11 indicates that being naked is an object of that knowledge.  But, Adam and Eve have known that since 2:25, so that is not an object of a knowledge that is enabled by the eating of the forbidden fruit. Instead, what is new is their skill in fashioning girdles out of fig-leaves.  Hence, what they have gained upon eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is some Techne.  Thus, the confusion at the root of this influential passage stems from the inconsistency between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and 3--two different accounts of the creation of humans, and two different accounts of their acquisition of divine Techne.  For example, current Economic policies continue to be influenced by the uncritical acceptance of that confusion, as has been previously discussed.

God, Humans, Techne

While according to the prevailing popular interpretation of 'knowledge of good and evil' in Genesis 3 as 'having sex', the text supports a Promethean reading of it, i. e. that it signifies a divine power that Adam and Eve steal.  For, despite the lowly status of the serpent in the episode, its characterization, at 5, that upon acquisition of that knowledge, Adam and Eve "shall be as God", is echoed by God himself a little later, at 22, that they "have become one of us", which is also notable for the plural pronoun at the end.  Furthermore, reflecting the making of the girdles by Adam and Eve, at 21, God made for them "garments of skins, and clothed them."  So, the details of the passage support the interpretation that, like Prometheus, Adam and Eve steal a divine power--Techne, i. e. Know-How--and use it for Work, i. e. for manufacturing that fulfills a Need.  Thus, the Theological interpretation of the Work-Leisure relation as that of Punishment-Salvation--the Sin being having forbidden sex--is not supported by the text that is purported to ground it.  Rather, it reads more like a parent kicking children out of the house because they are now capable of taking care of themselves.  On that basis, Leisure is a condition of childhood, and, hence, is conceived as Salvation by only a childish doctrine.

Fig-Leaves and Will to Power

What in the popular imagination is 'a fig leaf', is, as it actually appears in Genesis 3, "they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles".  So, aside from the questions of how Adam and Eve managed to perform an act of sewing, and why they previously needed no protection from the elements, their first action after eating the fruit of a tree that could "make one wise", is making a girdle out of fig-leaves, thereby strongly suggesting, on a literal reading of the passage, that such an action exemplifies the attaining of such 'wisdom'.  It also thus suggests that that attainment is what gets them banished from Eden, rather than a sex-act, as the standard interpretation has it.  Now, that wisdom is classified as Techne in the Philosophical tradition, and it also exemplifies the exercise of Will to Power, understood as the Will to Create, as has been previously discussed, i. e. because it involves imposing Form on the fig-leaves.  So, aside from the well-known exoteric challenges to the dominant Theological tradition that are articulated by Nietzsche, the Will to Power essentially constitutes an inversion of the Value-system implicit in, though rarely discerned therein, the passage that grounds it, i. e. by affirming the ability that is proscribed for humans in Eden.