----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- I would like to draw attention to the psychological ambivalences in both Smith's and Marx's theories of economic motivation. I would say that Smith made a clear distinction between self-interest and selfishness, though more directly in his earlier _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ than in _Wealth of Nations_, where he took pains to legitimize the prudential self-love by which people provide for their own wants. The difference--and tensions--between self-interest and selfishness does appear in WN. The invisible hand represents Smith's optimistic scenario, grounded in a "natural propensity to truck and barter" in the pursuit of self-interest, but he also spends considerable energy in criticizing various types of combination, which others have cited in this thread, in which selfish attempts to gain advantage thwart the development of trade and wealth, the Mercantile policies he is attacking being a chief case in point. The motivation for combination, however, is also natural to humans in Smith's view, which the mentions of power in this thread have referenced. I think there has been a tendency to promote Smith's optimistic scenario while minimizing or avoiding the pessimistic possibilities he raises. Unintended consequences, in other words, *might* be beneficial (in the optimistic scenario), but they *might not*, if the pessimistic scenario were to prevail. (Emma Rothschild has a useful discussion of unintended consequences in "The Bloody and Invisible Hand," chapter five in _Economics Sentiments_.) I would say that the difference between Smith and Marx lies in their opposite views of the relationship between the individual and her society: for Smith, individuals are socialized into appropriate behavior. This doesn't necessarily mean that individuals are inherently bad, but that the development of consideration for others is an outcome of social interaction through the dynamic interaction of a desire for approval and sympathy. Unsocialized individuals do run the risk of being selfish in an unredeemed way, though it's also possible that individuals can be fooled by vanity in desiring to better themselves to gain more admiration. The first case was more of a potential problem for Smith, one to be handled by rules of justice, than the latter, which would contribute productively to the increase of wealth as long as it did not contravene the laws of justice. Marx, on the other hand, is more like Rousseau in holding to a natural human goodness that becomes corrupted by society. The great change wrought by capitalism was that traditional venues of corruption like vanity in social rank gave way before the impersonal and pitiless cash nexus. Marx's view, if I can put it in the terms I used above about Smith, is that the pessimistic scenario of capitalists combining to corner power completely overwhelmed the possibility of Smith's optimistic "system of natural liberty," creating a situation that could only be put right by a revolution to establish different laws of property. Both argued for justice, but for very different senses of justice. The ambivalence in Smith is the tension between the optimistic system of natural liberty and the (equally natural) pessimistic scenario of the selfish pursuit of power. The ambivalence in Marx is the susceptibility to social corruption that is redeemed by social/political action. No wonder that a change in consciousness was necessary for Marx! But that is perhaps matched by Smith's desire that individuals grow a conscience, which is in itself a change in consciousness, yes? Paul Turpin University of Nevada, Las Vegas ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]