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'.