Profit-Motive and Cosmo-Economics

The primary target of Marxism in Capitalism is Exploitation, which is manifested in two ways--Private Property and Division of Labor, which Marx conceives as identical.  However, Private Property is exploitative only if it is income-generating, and, while his example of Husband-Wife Division of Labor might be exploitative, the male-female Division of Labor in the reproductive process is a vital necessity.  Instead, at the root of Capitalist Exploitation is the Profit-Motive, an anomalous, groundless, inessential feature of Smith's concrete system, as has been previously discussed, that Aristotle classifies as Chrematistic, symbolized by Midas.  Accordingly, one of the first tasks of a transition to a Cosmo-Economics is the elimination of the Profit-Motive, rather than concocting some combination of Capitalism and Socialism, as is typical of most advanced Economic systems currently.  For, the entailment by the Profit-Motive of inter-person dissociation has no place in an Organicist concept such as Cosmo-Economics.  Given how deeply entrenched the acceptance of the Profit-Motive has become as either a descriptive or a normative principle, that is no easy task.

Capitalism and the Means to National Wealth

Smith posits three means to National Wealth: 1. Individual Profit-Seeking; 2. Domestic Division of Labor; and 3. Inter-National Laissez-Faire.  Complicating the scheme is that #1 entails 4. Domestic Laissez-Faire, and confusing it is that the thesis 5. National Wealth is the sum of Individual Wealths, is more Bentham than Smith.  In contrast, contemporary Capitalism has reduced to #1 and, hence, also, to the entailed #4.  But, these are the weakest features of the original.  For, both of them remain without proof, and, more important, #1 has been the rationale for the greatest ill of Capitalism--Exploitation.  So, it is difficult to assess what in the historical context are the two concrete innovations of the system--Division of Labor and inter-National Laissez-Faire.

Capitalism and Intention

The Laissez-Faire dimension of Capitalism has its roots in Smith's thesis that the General Good is most effectively promoted by the exclusive focus of each on one's own Self-Interest.  But, despite a continued uncritical acceptance of that formulation, nothing remotely approaching an adequate proof of it has ever been advanced.  Now, one ground for doubting it is that it is internally incoherent.  For, the Individualism that it expresses is an application of Atomism, but Atomism recognizes no General Good other than an aggregate of Individual Goods.  Bentham might accept the latter, but Smith's Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts, as is entailed in his concept of Division of Labor. Another ground for doubting it is that it entails a rejection of a proposition that is elsewhere vital to Smith.  The rejected proposition is that of causal efficacy between an Intention, i. e. to promote the General Good, e. g. through benevolence, and an outcome, i. e. achieving the General Good.  However, that causal efficacy is vital to any supposition of an equivalence between Self-Interested motivation and the successful outcome of that goal.  In other words, a fundamental problem for Smith is that of a lacuna between his Morality and his Economics system based on improved efficiency.  Such a lacuna renders Capitalism susceptible to a deus ex machina supplement, whether an Invisible Hand or the deity of Calvinism, for example.

Capitalism, Morality, Economics

Capitalists believe that their system is a set of transactions between consenting adults, and, so, should be considered beyond the purview of a Polis, the scope of which is the public realm.  Regardless, because one of the cardinal principles of the system is normative for behavior, it entails a Moral doctrine, and is subject to evaluation on that ground.  Now, the fundamental Moral principle of Capitalism is 'One should always seek to maximize profit.'  Thus, conversely, 'One should never seek to benefit another to one's own disadvantage', a formulation of scholarly interest, since it seems to directly contradict Smith's earlier advocacy of Sympathy.  So, as is, Capitalist Morality is not, contrary to Bentham's ambition, a variety of Utilitarianism, but not because its principle lacks a reference to General Happiness.  Rather, it is anti-Utilitarian because it is a Morality of Intention, not a Consequentialist Morality.  So, without some other premise that links Intention with outcome, e. g. that a deity with causal efficacy, rewards/punishes the motive of action, Capitalism is not even an Economic system of any kind--it is a Moral doctrine.

Capitalism and Chrematistics

As has been previously discussed, Plato conceives Economics as a dimension of a Political system, while Aristotle conceives it as independent of the latter.  In other words, one is what has come to be known as Political-Economy, the other, as Micro-Economics.  On that basis, what is generally known as Macro-Economics, which studies topics such as the Gross National Product, is a variety of Micro-Economics, not of Political-Economy, i. e. because regardless of its National scope, it is still independent of any Political structure.  So, because Wealth of Nations considers no Political Theory, it would seem to qualify as Macro-Economics, not Political-Economy.  However, Aristotle might object to the implication that Smith's system is a variety of his concept of Economics.  For, he sharply distinguishes Economics from Chrematistics, i. e. Wealth as a means from Wealth as an end.  Now, in Smith's system, Profit can be a by-product of a Division of Labor that more efficiently produces Goods, and can be distributed via the Invisible Hand to those in need.  But, he also promotes Profit-seeking for its own sake as the fundamental behavioral principle, as do the majority of his followers.  So, to that extent, Capitalism is, from an Aristotelian perspective, Chrematistic, not either Micro- or Macro-Economics.

Nationalism and Globalization

Recent U. S. increase in the imposition of tariffs is interpreted by some as a Nationalist reaction against Globalization.  However, both 'Nationalist' and 'Globalization' are ambiguous.  First, Nation can connote either a unity of an internal manifold, or one of a multiplicity of such unities.  But, as has been previously discussed, on the basis of the Atomism in which they are both conceived, the two are incommensurate.  Thus, a domestic Free Market does not entail an inter-National Free Market, thereby entailing the possibility of a conflict exemplified by, as has been previously discussed, the distinction between Mercantilism and Capitalism.  Second, Globalization connotes either a general elimination of local barriers, including National ones, or, as is more commonly the case, specifically Capitalist Globalization, i. e. the recognition of and participation in an inter-National Free Market.  In other words, this recent policy development is a Mercantilist reaction against Capitalism, and not necessarily a Nationalist reaction against Globalization.

Genealogy and Inheritance

In Nietzsche's concept of a Genealogy of Morals, the focus on the latter term has obscured the significance of the former.  A Genealogy is a Natural Form of Temporality, and, hence, a rival to the concept of History.  Now, in the 19th-century, the predominant concept of History is Hegelian, which combines a Kantian Universalist Teleology and Christian Messianism, or, in other words, Dialectical Spiritualism.  So, Dialectical Materialism is its primary alternative.  Thus, Genealogy is a rival to both, but more immediately so to Dialectical Materialism, which can also be classified as Naturalist, as opposed to Supernaturalist, which characterizes Hegel's concept.  Now, the concept of Genealogy is more useful in one respect than Dialectical Materialism to Marxism--it grounds Inheritance, and, hence, the continuation of the private ownership of the basis of all Wealth, i. e. Land.  It thereby shows more clearly than Dialectical Materialism that Inheritance is the foundation of Capitalist exploitation.  That it is also the foundation of social Inequality is missed by American Liberals who want to merely tax Inheritance as a source of income.