Skip to content

Details

This week, we go back to the foundations of economics during the industrial age. We begin with Adam Smith, who is constantly invoked and rarely read. The Smith of caricature is a booster of unfettered self-interest. The actual Smith, author of both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, was a moral philosopher first. He admired markets because, under the right conditions, they channeled self-interest into mutual benefit. But he was clear-eyed about those conditions: a functioning system of justice, public investment in roads, schools, and the goods private actors will not provide, and above all, a wary stance toward the merchants and manufacturers whose interest, he warned, is never the same as the public's. Smith would not recognize much of what is defended in his name. He would ask, of Argentina and of the United States alike, whether the markets in question are competitive or captured.

We then turn to Karl Marx, whose diagnosis has aged better than his prescriptions. Marx's central claim, developed across the three volumes of Das Kapital, was that capitalism is not a steady state but a dynamic system with built-in tendencies, toward the concentration of capital, toward recurring crises, and toward a state that, whatever its formal arrangements, tends to serve those who own productive assets. A bailout that protects bondholders while wages compress is precisely the pattern he described. So is the funneling of AI investment to the few firms with the capital to train frontier models. One need not accept Marx's theory of history to find his theory of concentration uncomfortably accurate. The harder question he leaves us is whether democratic politics can meaningfully constrain those tendencies, or whether democratic politics is itself shaped by them.

Finally we come to Joseph Schumpeter, who admired capitalism more honestly than most of its defenders. For Schumpeter, the engine of capitalism was not equilibrium but disruption, "creative destruction," the entrepreneur tearing up the old to make room for the new. Yet he predicted capitalism would not fall to external attack. It would erode through its own success: bureaucratization would replace the entrepreneur, prosperity would breed a hostile intellectual class, and the system would drift, almost imperceptibly, into something else. AI is the sharpest test his framework has faced. Is what we are watching creative destruction, in which the displacement is the price of broader gains, or destruction without the creation, in which the gains accrue to a few and the displacement is everyone else's problem? Schumpeter would not flinch from the question, and he would not let either side answer it cheaply.

Links
Adam Smith
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adam-Smith
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/smith-moral-political/
Library of Economics and Liberty https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (full text) https://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS.html

Karl Marx
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
Marxists Internet Archive
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/
Das Kapital
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Joseph Schumpeter https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Alois-Schumpeter
Library of Economics and Liberty https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Schumpeter.html Creative destruction
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CreativeDestruction.html

Timezones 6:00 AM, Pacific (USA) 7:00 AM, Mountain (USA) 8:00 AM, Central (USA) 9:00 AM, Eastern (USA)

About Our Group We welcome open minded, respectful conversation on Stoicism and its relevance to daily life, personal growth, and modern thought.

Our discussions connect ancient philosophy with contemporary science, psychology, and culture with the shared aim of cultivating wisdom together. The meeting begins at 9:00 AM Eastern, with dialogue starting promptly at 9:15 AM.

You may also like