Economics, Politics, Morality

The difference between Political-Economy and Macro-Economics is that while in the former, Economics is integral to Politics, and perhaps even its basis, e. g. Marxism, in the latter, the sphere of Economics is circumscribed within the Political realm, and, perhaps, is opaque with respect it.  In other words, Macro-Economics is a larger version of Micro-Economics, and similarly private.  Thus, as in the case of another circumscribed, opaque, activity, the sporting event, a Macro-Economic code of behavior might be independent of the Morality of the more general society, e. g. in boxing, Battery is not only permissible, but mandatory.  Accordingly, it is possible that Smith conceives the relation between Economic Self-Interest and Sympathy as that of an opaque specialized Ethos to general Morality.  But, if so, then the circumscription is permeable, given that poverty, for example, exceeds the confines of the Market.  Still, to judge Exploitation on general, not specialized, grounds, presupposes a general context, but it is unclear if Marx offers one.  For, if, as he proposes, Economics is the basis of all human activity, e. g. Leisure is a negation of Labor within that sphere, then the disapproval of Exploitation must be grounded on some Economic principle.  However, Marx seems to take that judgment for granted, perhaps as a tacit concession to one of Kant's Duties.  If so, then there is a larger human context within which Economics is located, opaquely or otherwise, in which case Economics is not the Base of Society or of Politics.  To explain what such a context might be requires a more elaborate characterization than his brief description, in the German Ideology, of hunting, fishing, etc., of what non-Labor life in that larger context might be like.  As is, his condemnation of Exploitation, and, thus, his repudiation of Capitalism, remains ungrounded.