Enlightened Self-Interest and Prudential Self-Interest

'Enlightened' Self-Interest can be distinguished from what is sometimes called 'Prudential' Self-Interest. While according to the former, one's own Good is either a means to or a part of the General Good, according to the latter, the achievement of the General Good benefits oneself, and, hence, is to be promoted as a means to it. Both main versions of Utilitarianism are examples of the former, while the latter follows from the premise, advocated by e. g. Hume, that the role of Reason in behavior is to calculate the best means to one's satisfaction. In contrast, Smith vacillates between the two concepts of Self-Interest-- the phrase 'wealth of nations' expresses the 'enlightened' variety, while some passages reflect Hume's influence. Contemporary Capitalist discourse about 'Enlightened Self-Interest' is typically similarly casual in that respect.

Self-Interest and Enlightenment

'Enlightened Self-Interest' usually connotes the coordination of one's own Good with the general Good, attributable to classical Capitalism, starting with Wealth of Nations, though not to some contemporary versions, e. g. Rand's. However, typically lacking in the advocacy of the concept is an exhaustive analysis of it. One exception is that of Kant's system, which shows that the coordination converts each Individual into an entity equal to every other under a universal law. Accordingly, one's own Self-Interest loses any privileged status in one's conduct. In other words, 'Enlightened Self-Interest', is self-contradictory, a consequence that advocates tend to stop short of recognizing.

Will to Power, Competitiveness, Profit-Seeking

On Nietzsche's usual analysis of it, Will to Power qua Self-Overcoming is a synchronic structure, i. e. in which the result of the exercise of control of a 'lower' Self' by a 'higher' Self is simultaneous with the exercise. In contrast, according to a diachronic interpretation of Self-Overcoming, one which it is unclear that Nietzsche does or would endorse, the transcending of Self by Self leads to a superior Self that is subsequent to the transcending. Thus, since Profit-Seeking entails the surpassing of one condition by a subsequent greater one, it could be attributed to the diachronic Will to Power. Now, on Nietzsche's diagnosis, Self-Overcoming is the product of the internalization of aggression. So, likewise, as an expression of the Will to Power, Profit-Seeking can be understood as the internalization of Competitiveness, i. e. of a triumph over another force. But, if so, then Profit-Seeking and Competitiveness are not identical drives, contrary to the generally accepted premises of Capitalism. So, while the Will to Power might be a more versatile Psychological principle than Self-Interest, which is the standard principle of Capitalist theory, the attempt to incorporate it into the latter only brings the incoherence of that model into greater relief.

Self-Interest, Competitiveness, Will to Power, Capitalism

The frequently accepted interchangeability of Self-Interest and Competitiveness in Capitalist theories tends to abstract from a significant factor. For, while the goal of each is some personal satisfaction, that of the former can be sufficiently achieved by the acquisition of some object, e. g. food, essential to that of the latter is a victory over others, and, hence, unlike that of the former, the involvement of others. In other words, receiving a reward and outperforming a rival are often distinguishable in one and the same game, a distinction not explained by the presumed interchangeability. In contrast, a psychological drive that is more adequate to Competitiveness is the Will to Power, a necessary feature of which is the overcoming of resistance per se. However, contemporary Capitalists who have sought support from Nietzsche in that respect overlook that in its superior manifestations, Will to Power becomes Self-Overcoming, i. e. Self-Control, and, perhaps, a Will to Empower others, neither of which is necessarily a means to the maximization of Wealth. So, Competitiveness remains without adequate psychological grounding in Capitalist models.

Competition and Collaboration

At its etymological root, to 'compete' means to 'seek together', so 'competition' is synonymous with 'collaboration'. In sharp contrast, of course, 'competition' usually connotes 'zero-sum game', in which togetherness at the conclusion is precluded, i. e. not everybody can win. Thus, insofar as in Capitalist theory, even the thought of collaboration is proscribed, in its emphasis on Self-Interest as the exclusive goal of any player, its concept of 'competition' is doubly antithetical to the original.

Growth, Profit, Loss

The negation of organic Growth is stasis of some variety. Therefore, if there is a corresponding Will to Grow, such negation would be experienced as boredom, repression, etc., depending on circumstances. Likewise, insofar as any of those occurs in a business context, it could be interpreted as confirmation of the thesis that Profit-Seeking is a special case of a Will to Grow. However, the most significant Economic negation of Profit is Loss, not mere non-Gain. Hence, the psychology of Profit-Seeking, i. e. of Gain-and-Loss, is not easily reducible to a Will to Grow.

Self-Interest, Interest, Growth

While Smith conceives Self-Interest to be the motor of his system, that of contemporary Capitalism is Interest. In addition to the perhaps unwitting depersonalization expressed in tha dropping of the 'Self-' prefix, the phrase 'seed money' hardly converts an Interest-facilitated loan into an agricultural enterprise. Finally, since Growth entails the preservation of internal coherence, a quantitative increase that can be comprised of a combination of sharp gains and widespread losses hardly qualifies as Economic 'growth'. So, the use of biological metaphors to promote Economic policy, a staple of contemporary Political rhetoric, does not hold up well to rigorous scrutiny.