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.