Certainly one of my long-ago professors–not an economist, and never a political conservative– generally stated that Adam Smith was simply flat out deeper and extra fascinating than a lot of his critics, who usually attempt to cut back him to a cardboard cutout disciple of free-market fundamentalism. For instance, I’ve heard (uninformed) criticisms of Smith that he assumes everybody desires to purchase and promote, when various folks as a substitute would like to dominate and take. Paolo Santori engages with this nook of Smith’s work in “Domination vs. Persuasion: The Function of Libido Dominandi in Adam Smith’s Thought” (The Overview of Politics, 2025, 1–18).
Santori appears to favor the Latin libido dominandi, however as he factors out, Smith writes of “love of domination” and “love of domineer.” Right here’s Smith’ dialogue of need to dominate, within the context of masters who need to dominate slaves, from The Wealth of Nations (E-book III, Chapter 2). Smith wrote:
The expertise of all ages and nations, I imagine, demonstrates that the work executed by slaves, although it seems to price solely their upkeep, is ultimately the dearest of any. An individual who can purchase no property, can haven’t any different curiosity however to eat as a lot, and to labour as little as potential. No matter work he does past what’s adequate to buy his personal upkeep may be squeezed out of him by violence solely, and never by any curiosity of his personal. In historic Italy, how a lot the cultivation of corn degenerated, how unprofitable it turned to the grasp when it fell below the administration of slaves, is remarked by each Pliny and Columella. Within the time of Aristotle it had not been a lot better in historic Greece. …
The delight of man makes him like to domineer, and nothing mortifies him a lot as to be obliged to condescend to steer his inferiors. Wherever the regulation permits it, and the character of the work can afford it, due to this fact, he’ll usually favor the service of slaves to that of freemen. The planting of sugar and tobacco can afford the expence of slave-cultivation. The elevating of corn, it appears, within the current instances, can not. Within the English colonies, of which the principal produce is corn, the far better a part of the work is finished by freemen. … In our sugar colonies, quite the opposite, the entire work is finished by slaves, and in our tobacco colonies a really nice a part of it. The earnings of a sugar-plantation in any of our West Indian colonies are usually a lot better than these of another cultivation that’s identified both in Europe or America; and the earnings of a tobacco plantation, although inferior to these of sugar, are superior to these of corn, as has already been noticed. Each can afford the expence of slave-cultivation, however sugar can afford it nonetheless higher than tobacco. The variety of negroes accordingly is way better, in proportion to that of whites, in our sugar than in our tobacco colonies.
Santori traces Smith’s concepts concerning the “like to domineer” throughout Smith’s different works, like The Ethical Sentiments and the Lectures on Jurisprudence. He argues that different authors have generally interpreted the “delight” that Smith speaks of as the basis of a “like to domineer” as a form of vainness or a need for the popularity of others.
Santori argues {that a} extra persuasive interpretation is to consider “delight” on this context as a sin. He quotes Smith in The Ethical Sentiments: “”The proud man doesn’t all the time really feel himself comfy within the firm of his equals, and nonetheless much less of that of his superiors.” Santori argues for this sort of delight, there’s a pleasure in not needing to spend time or vitality persuading or acquiring consent. Certainly, this “like to domineer” is powerful sufficient, in Smith’s argument, that those that maintain slaves are keen to surrender among the materials advantages they might have from hiring free labor.
On this a part of the Wealth of Nations, Smith is discussing the historic transition from feudal to industrial society. In that context, Santori argues:
We learn within the Lectures on Jurisprudence (LJ) and Wealth of Nations (WN) that masters’ love of domination is what’s going to make slavery or servitude perpetual, in distinction with masters’ actual curiosity that might be fostered by having free males reasonably than enslaved folks working for them. … Smith argued that the emergence of European industrial society, grounded on free-market exchanges between people based mostly on persuasion, marginalized and undermined libido dominandi. Nonetheless, he knew that industrial society couldn’t remove libido dominandi and that, every time socio-economic circumstances permit, human beings will attempt to dominate one another. He noticed this within the colonies and in particular markets (colliers and salters). …
To Smith, industrial society is a extra mature approach of conceiving life in widespread and civil society. In distinction, love of domination expresses a infantile wanting to acquire all the things with out effort. Human beings can flourish once they study to reside in a society the place they can not impose their goals. They have to cope with others’ goals and opinions in relations based mostly on persuasion reasonably than domination. Grownup life in a industrial society requires one thing higher than the love of domination. Right here, I’m increasing Smith’s argument, however hope to have remained trustworthy to his spirit.
A standard criticism about so-called “free markets” is that there are occasions they don’t really feel particularly “free,” like when it’s time to go to work within the morning or when the payments are due. Furthermore, hierarchies in industrial companies and markets do present some scope for individuals who “like to domineer” to take action. However the “like to domineer” doesn’t go away in international locations the place markets and politics are usually not free–and might present itself in much more distasteful methods.
Certainly one of my long-ago professors–not an economist, and never a political conservative– generally stated that Adam Smith was simply flat out deeper and extra fascinating than a lot of his critics, who usually attempt to cut back him to a cardboard cutout disciple of free-market fundamentalism. For instance, I’ve heard (uninformed) criticisms of Smith that he assumes everybody desires to purchase and promote, when various folks as a substitute would like to dominate and take. Paolo Santori engages with this nook of Smith’s work in “Domination vs. Persuasion: The Function of Libido Dominandi in Adam Smith’s Thought” (The Overview of Politics, 2025, 1–18).
Santori appears to favor the Latin libido dominandi, however as he factors out, Smith writes of “love of domination” and “love of domineer.” Right here’s Smith’ dialogue of need to dominate, within the context of masters who need to dominate slaves, from The Wealth of Nations (E-book III, Chapter 2). Smith wrote:
The expertise of all ages and nations, I imagine, demonstrates that the work executed by slaves, although it seems to price solely their upkeep, is ultimately the dearest of any. An individual who can purchase no property, can haven’t any different curiosity however to eat as a lot, and to labour as little as potential. No matter work he does past what’s adequate to buy his personal upkeep may be squeezed out of him by violence solely, and never by any curiosity of his personal. In historic Italy, how a lot the cultivation of corn degenerated, how unprofitable it turned to the grasp when it fell below the administration of slaves, is remarked by each Pliny and Columella. Within the time of Aristotle it had not been a lot better in historic Greece. …
The delight of man makes him like to domineer, and nothing mortifies him a lot as to be obliged to condescend to steer his inferiors. Wherever the regulation permits it, and the character of the work can afford it, due to this fact, he’ll usually favor the service of slaves to that of freemen. The planting of sugar and tobacco can afford the expence of slave-cultivation. The elevating of corn, it appears, within the current instances, can not. Within the English colonies, of which the principal produce is corn, the far better a part of the work is finished by freemen. … In our sugar colonies, quite the opposite, the entire work is finished by slaves, and in our tobacco colonies a really nice a part of it. The earnings of a sugar-plantation in any of our West Indian colonies are usually a lot better than these of another cultivation that’s identified both in Europe or America; and the earnings of a tobacco plantation, although inferior to these of sugar, are superior to these of corn, as has already been noticed. Each can afford the expence of slave-cultivation, however sugar can afford it nonetheless higher than tobacco. The variety of negroes accordingly is way better, in proportion to that of whites, in our sugar than in our tobacco colonies.
Santori traces Smith’s concepts concerning the “like to domineer” throughout Smith’s different works, like The Ethical Sentiments and the Lectures on Jurisprudence. He argues that different authors have generally interpreted the “delight” that Smith speaks of as the basis of a “like to domineer” as a form of vainness or a need for the popularity of others.
Santori argues {that a} extra persuasive interpretation is to consider “delight” on this context as a sin. He quotes Smith in The Ethical Sentiments: “”The proud man doesn’t all the time really feel himself comfy within the firm of his equals, and nonetheless much less of that of his superiors.” Santori argues for this sort of delight, there’s a pleasure in not needing to spend time or vitality persuading or acquiring consent. Certainly, this “like to domineer” is powerful sufficient, in Smith’s argument, that those that maintain slaves are keen to surrender among the materials advantages they might have from hiring free labor.
On this a part of the Wealth of Nations, Smith is discussing the historic transition from feudal to industrial society. In that context, Santori argues:
We learn within the Lectures on Jurisprudence (LJ) and Wealth of Nations (WN) that masters’ love of domination is what’s going to make slavery or servitude perpetual, in distinction with masters’ actual curiosity that might be fostered by having free males reasonably than enslaved folks working for them. … Smith argued that the emergence of European industrial society, grounded on free-market exchanges between people based mostly on persuasion, marginalized and undermined libido dominandi. Nonetheless, he knew that industrial society couldn’t remove libido dominandi and that, every time socio-economic circumstances permit, human beings will attempt to dominate one another. He noticed this within the colonies and in particular markets (colliers and salters). …
To Smith, industrial society is a extra mature approach of conceiving life in widespread and civil society. In distinction, love of domination expresses a infantile wanting to acquire all the things with out effort. Human beings can flourish once they study to reside in a society the place they can not impose their goals. They have to cope with others’ goals and opinions in relations based mostly on persuasion reasonably than domination. Grownup life in a industrial society requires one thing higher than the love of domination. Right here, I’m increasing Smith’s argument, however hope to have remained trustworthy to his spirit.
A standard criticism about so-called “free markets” is that there are occasions they don’t really feel particularly “free,” like when it’s time to go to work within the morning or when the payments are due. Furthermore, hierarchies in industrial companies and markets do present some scope for individuals who “like to domineer” to take action. However the “like to domineer” doesn’t go away in international locations the place markets and politics are usually not free–and might present itself in much more distasteful methods.
