@ atezcan - Well said, if I may. If you look at my "The State of Equilibrium - art !

"
belo", you "ill find a theoretical distinction bet"een #lassical olitical Economy and the
$ustrian School or %eoclassical Theory. In a nutshell, "hat I am sayin& is that $dam
Smith and the '#lassics' ()icardo, *ill+ concentrated not so much on "distribution" of
"social "ealth" (read, ca,italist ,roduction+ as the -eynesians and %eo-)icardians ha.e
em,hasised. The real, most im,ortant distinction is that Smith in ,articular - and then
finally *ar/ - "looked inside the black bo/" of the ca,italist ,roduction ,rocess0
In other "ords, Smith's em,hasis on "the di.ision of labour" is the inter,retati.e 'key' to
his "In.isible 1and". This is so because "the di.ision of labour" (as Emile 2urkheim, one
of the founders of 'sociolo&y', sho"ed+ u,on close ins,ection re.eals all those historical,
,olitical, economic and sociolo&ical forces or factors that are the .ery essence of
"economic analysis" (contra Schum,eter+0
"The di.ision of labour", as the source of the ""ealth" Smith intended (and not
"distribution" as *ar/ists and )icardians from 2obb to Sraffa ha.e it - and my mentor
1arcourt, but see 3. )obinson4s 5Ideolo&y and Economic Science4 discussion of Smith
and *ande.ille+ is the "-ey" to ca,italist society. Thus, the "difference" bet"een
#lassical and %eoclassical Theories is that the first started "ith "society" (in fact, ci.il
society+, or rather "ith the 6social co-o,eration7 that is fundamental to ca,italist
,roduction (includin& its di.ision in 6classes7 "ith their anta&onistic or in Smith 6different7
interests+ "hereas the latter starts and ends "ith...."the indi.idual".
This e/,lains ho" 5unfounded4 is 8ucio #olletti4s attack on Smith (in Ideolo&ia e Societa4+
"hen he u,braids him for failin& to adhere to *ande.ille4s 6,arado/7 of 6,ri.ate .ices,
,ublick benefits7. #olletti4s attack is founded on the 6immiseration7 (sur,lus .alue as
e/,ansion of the labour force+. 9ut Smith already had in mind 6relati.e e/traction of
sur,lus .alue7, "hereby the li.in& standards (use .alues+ a.ailable to "orkers "ere
e/,anded by ca,italist ,roduction, that is 6the di.ision of labour7. This is "hat Smith
sees, but *ande.ille (intent on his 6,arado/7+ either does not, "hich "ould ,ut him in the
"ron&, or else he does see the di.ision of labour and he does see the 6,ublick benefits7
but he also is a"are of the 6,olitical .iolence7 in.ol.ed in the forced 6se,aration7
(Trennun&+ of "orkers from the collecti.e ,roduct of the di.ision of labour : "hich is the
1obbesian 6use7 of social "ealth. This 6Trennun&7, not 6immiseration7 (absolute or
relati.e+ is the real historical basis of *ande.ille4s 6,arado/7. That is "hy, as #olletti
himself notes, *ande.ille o"es a lot to 1obbes (,.;<=+.
#olletti sees in the 6*ande.illean7 Smith (em,hasisin& the 6,arado/7 of 6,ri.ate .ices-
,ublick benefits7+ the ,roduct of 6science7 : of 61obbesian em,iricist7 science >,.;<=?@
and in the 8ockean Smith he sees the a,olo&ist of ca,italism, reconcilin& the
irreconcilable (-ant4s 5un&eselle Aeselli&keit4 and *ande.ille4s 6,arado/7, no less than
)ousseau4s 6different 5self-interests47 in the 52iscours4+.
But he does not see the connection between Mandeville and Hobbes except for the
scientific approach of the latter, which is what is missing in the Smith of the Theor!,
and differentiates him from Mandeville " the violence that is needed to operate the
Trennung# $n Mandeville%Hobbes, the State is there with all its violent apparatus,
though Mandeville might not advert to it &but remember his concern for law and order'()
or, if he does not see the Trennung, at least he sees the paradox of the .iolence that
reduces a ma*orit of wor+ers to produce for a minorit or at least to sell their services
for the latter , though he would be wrong to insist on immiseration because this is not
what is central to the paradox and, in an case, to the extent that private vices &luxur(
extend public+ benefits &social wealth( the are not so paradoxical'
The above is the most important point to be made in this chapter# -nd also the fact that
.olletti locates the conflict between Smith!s and Mandeville!s notions of laisse/ faire
harmon " that is, the wealth of nations through the invisible hand for Smith, and
public+ benefits through private vices or egoism%ferit for Mandeville " in the fact that
Mandeville re*oices at the evident paradox of riches through povert &or
immiseration(, whereas Smith planes over this with the Hutchesonian notion of
invisible,hand harmon or enlightened self,interest &the triumph of utilitarianism(#
.olletti upbraids Smith for glossing over this immiseration or ine0ualit or paradox
or anarch of capitalism# The point we are ma+ing is that .olletti &and Marx'( totall
neglects the Trennung, which is the real standpoint &however unspo+en( of Mandeville!s
paradox1 ,his Hobbesian standpoint' .olletti and Marx alwas la stress on the
ine0ualit of class societ, not at the far more pivotal violence of the Trennung'
-aye in his learned Introduction to the 5Bable4 seeks to defend *ande.ille or at least
5mollify4 his 6anti-#harity School7 .ie"s on the &round that these "ere quite rife and
acce,table at the time. 9ut the crucial characteristic is that *ande.ille e.inces
inconfutably his 6a"areness7 that the 6ublick 9enefits7 are clearly connected "ith the
6ri.ate Cice7 of a 6chea, and ,lentiful7 su,,ly of 6useful 8abour7 (-aye, art iii, ,ar.D+.
Educatin& future "orkers in these Schools raises their e/,ectations and reduces their
"illin&ness to "orkE this is the ,ellucid ca,italist ne/us bet"een the 6,ublick benefit7 of
the creation of 6"ealth7 and the satisfaction of the 6,ri.ate .ices7 (bour&eois self-interest+
that *ande.ille satirises. (And here is also la saldatura tra letica puritana e
lutilitarismo delleconomia politica nascente, Colletti, p280 again, the opposite
of labour is otium so that the utility of consumption has to be paid for by
the disutility of labour !e"ons#$%
Fet, "hat is truly im,ortant about this is not the 6unfairness7 or 6ferity7 of *ande.ille4s
moral stance, nor the sanctionin& of 6inequality7, and not e.en ultimately the 6alienation7
of "orkers from life under ca,italismE it is rather the 6.iolence7 of a social reality meant to
,er,etuate the Trennun&.
The second as,ect of 6the in.isible hand7 may "ell be .alid if Smith intended by
6enli&htened self-interest7 the "ay in "hich human co-o,eration throu&h the di.ision of
labour is ,ossible and desirable e.en "hen it is indi.idual self-interest in the
2urkheimian sense of 6or&anic solidarity7, and not some other 6solidarity7 (ethical or
reli&ious, as )ousseau cra.ed+, that ,ro.ides 6the social synthesis7 or 6the social fabric7
u,on "hich Smith4s olitical Economy is founded. #olletti is denyin& Smith the ability to
,ostulate such a 6ci.ilised society7 as this, attributin& to him instead the 6bellum omnium
contra omnes7 of 1obbes4s ,re-ci.il, ,re-contractual 6state of nature7, "hich is clearly
not in Smith4s uni.erse0 (Indeed, the fact that Smith "as quite a"are of )ousseau4s
obser.ations in this re&ard in the 52iscours4 about the different nature of 6self-interest7 in
6co-o,erati.e7 and 6com,etiti.e7 societies may reinforce the thesis that he did not
consider his comments .is-G-.is *ande.ille in 6The Theory of *oral Sentiments7 to
amount to 6strabism7 >3.)obinson?0+
In the earlier essay on )ousseau and ci.il society, #olletti describes ho" )ousseau has
a 6destructi.e7 .ie" of 6the di.ision of labour7 tout court "hich he confuses "ith
6e/chan&e7 : but not "ith 6self-interest7, "hich can be 6constructi.e7 in ,rimiti.e &rou,s.
So does *ande.illeE but unlike )ousseau he cham,ions satirically the 6,ublick benefits7
arisin& from 6,ri.ate .ices7 : and therein lies the 6,arado/7. *ande.ille does not
6reconcile7 the t"o as,ects of bour&eois 6ci.il society7@ there is no 6social synthesis7 or
(in 1ayek4s ,hrase+ 6economic co-ordination7 or (in neo-classical terminolo&y+
6equilibrium7 in *ande.ille4s bour&eois economy. This is "here Smith needs 6the
In.isible 1and7 : because he cannot 6reconcile7 the self-interests e/ce,t throu&h 6the
market7, "hich can only be 6self-re&ulatin&7 in an 6in.isible7, 6inscrutable7 manner0 Smith
notices the im-,ossibility or the 6a,ory7 of the market actually reconcilin& ,ri.ate
interests by reachin& 6equilibrium7 (the 6social synthesis7 or 6co-ordination7+, let alone
6economic &ro"th7. The fact that he confuses 6the di.ision of labour7 "ith 6market
e/chan&e7 is "hat allo"s him to ar&ue that the latter is the source of 6"ealth7 (remember
the title to art H, 5If the Im,ro.ementJ4+ althou&h he clearly embraces 6the labour
theory of .alue7, "hich de,ends on the former for its .alidity (6.alue7 cannot come from
6e/chan&e7, nor can 6&ro"th-as-de.elo,ment7 as Schum,eter found out+. (#olletti on the
role of 6s.ilu,,o economico7 in Smith, ,,;H!-K.+
*i&ht Smith not ha.e en.isa&ed (e.en "ithin the 6,ro.idential7 confines of the in.isible
hand and the self-re&ulatin& market : althou&h antithetically to these+ the ,ossibility of
an 6enli&htened7 ca,italismL #ould 6relati.e e/,loitation7 not ha.e ,layed a ,art in the
conce,t of the in.isible hand and the di.ision of labour (thou&h "e are .ery far from any
notion of social ca,ital or State-lanL+.
)ecall that, as #olletti himself notes, Smith >in 5Essays on h.SbMcts4? "as a"are of and
,raised )ousseau4s 52iscours sur l4Ine&alite4 "here he hi&hli&hts the im,ortant distinction
bet"een 6self-interest7 in a 6co-o,erati.e7 society and the same 6self-interest7 in a
6com,etiti.e7 one. Smith says that )ousseau 6confutes *ande.ille7 in that the former
sees a 6&ood7 state of nature and the latter sees a 61obbesian7 one. $nd this must be
"here Smith dre" the line, choosin& to rely instead on the 8ockean (natural ri&hts
acquired in the state of nature, as a&ainst 6state of "ar7, and 6,rotectedN,reser.ed7 in
6ci.il society7 : and this is abo.e all 6labour7 and consequently 6,ro,erty7+, rather than
1obbesian (homo homini lu,usN belllum omnium contra omnes+ - notion of "hat he
called 6ci.ilised society7. Smith then 6uncritically7 ,roceeded to e/tend the 8ockean
6natural ri&ht to the fruit of one!s labour7 to the .ery different notion of
6se,arationNa,,ro,riation7 of the fruits of social labour. $nd this became the source of
the confusion bet"een 6e/chan&e7 and the 6di.ision of social labour#
The ,oint here is that )ousseau sees 2urkheimian 6mechanical solidarity7, "ith
em,hasis on 6co-o,eration7, in the state of nature de&enerate into the 6or&anic solidarity7
of bour&eois society, "ith its 6atomisation7. (E.en #olletti calls )ousseau4s 6romantic7
a,,roach 6or&anicismo7 >,.;!D?. It4s unfortunate 2urkheim in.erted the terms because
6or&anic solidarity7 is more a,,ro,riate to a sim,le di.ision of labour and 6mechanical7
>reference to 6industrial machinery-Technique7? is far more a,,ro,riate to industrial
ca,italism.+ 9ut he sees it as a 6de&eneration7 brou&ht about by the ulterior di.ision of
labour itself (equates it "ith 6e/chan&e7, like Smith+. Smith instead does not ,ercei.e the
Trennun& but can ado,t 8ocke4s 6natural ri&ht to ,ro,erty7 ("hich )ousseau does not
allo"+ and cham,ion the ad.anta&es of self-interested 6e/chan&e7 equi,arated to the
di.ision of labour "ith its &reater efficiency. The di.ision of labour as 6,roducti.eNefficient
e/chan&e7 Smith takes from *ande.ille. 9ut he reMects the 1obbesian-*ande.illean line
that 6force7 is needed to secureNenforce the Trennun& : the force of 58e.iathan4 :
althou&h he sees the role of 6ci.il society7 as one "hereby the State ,rotects ,ro,erty
from 6en.y7 (#olletti, ,,;!!-K+.
*ande.ille4s 6,hiloso,hical anarchy7 or relati.ism, his denial "ith 9ayle of a 5summum
bonum4, his reductio ad absurdum of 6ri&ourism, and therefore of the 8ockean 52eist4
.ie" to&ether "ith his 6,essimism7 ,lace him squarely in the 1obbesian non-Musnaturalist
cam, (-aye+. *ande.ille 6reMoices4 (-aye4s intro to 5The Bable4+ in the 6ferity7 of humans
: the 1obbesian 6homo homini lu,us7 that is o.ercome contractually (no $ufhebun&
here0+ in the status civilis. 9ut this is ,recisely "hat 8ocke, Ber&uson and Smith ha.e
abandonedE their 6ci.il society7 is not *ande.ille4sE - his is 1obbes4s 6,re-ci.il7 status
naturae@ and only the totalitarian (because 6a,olitical7 destruction of ,ri.ate s,here+
.iolence of 58e.iathan4 throu&h the 5Trennun&4, "hich *ande.ille un"ittin&ly assumes,
can ,ro.ide the foundation of bour&eois 6ci.il society7.
This is "hat #olletti ne&lects. Thus, Smith4s obMection to *ande.ille in 5The Theory4 can
be ,laced in the ri&ht conte/tE Smith is not embracin& 1utcheson4s and Shaftesbury
6harmony7 conce,t, thou&h the comments in 5Theory4 may 6miss the mark7 (#olletti and
)obinson+. *yrdal (5ol.Elmnt.4+ ,raises *ande.ille4s brutal honesty as a&ainst Smith4s
dissimulationNa,olo&y. 9ut, a&ain, he and 3. )obinson are also mistaken because
Smith4s 6self-understandin&7 of ca,italist de.elo,ment is not a 6,arado/7 of 6,ri.ate
.ices, ,ublick benefits7 : because he does not acce,t or take into account the Trennun&.
1I99ES $%2 8I#-EE $s $. iazzi sho"s, the dominant difference is that 1obbes
starts "ith the 6state of "ar7 "here indi.iduals can concei.e 6ri&hts7 but cannot enforce
them until their contract establishes the State by alienatin& 6all7 claims to 6natural ri&hts7.
Thereu,on, once there is 6,ositi.e la"7, they can 6acquire7 le&al ri&hts. The ,o"er and
authority of the State is "ell-ni&h total and similar across all ty,es of 6states7 (from
monarchy to tyranny >contra $ristotle?+, but monarchy is ,referable because 6corru,tion7
is restricted and the monarch "ill treat the common"ealth as his o"n ,ro,erty. 1obbes
allo"s of ,ri.ate ,ro,erty and of e/,anded ,roduction and trade so lon& as they do not
"eaken the State. $&ain, iazzi stresses the ,rimacy of the ,olitical autonomy of the
State in 1obbes to establish the machinery of &o.ernment and of coerci.e ,o"ers to
secure the common interest. %atural ri&hts are not 6,reser.ed7 as in 8ockeE they are only
5.elleities4 in the state of nature and require their total alienation to acquire 6,ositi.e7
effect. )ousseau "ill later obser.e, contra 8ocke and other 5Musnaturalists4, that if 6ci.il
society7 and its State only ser.e 6to ,reser.e7 the 6,re-acquired7 natural ri&hts of the
status naturaeJ.then there is no need "hate.er for this contractual society0(See #olletti
quote from 5*anoscritto di Aine.ra4, ,.;!O.+
If course, 8ocke4s Treatise differs in that it re,resents a far more 6inde,endent7
bour&eoisie able to im,ose a di.ision or 6balance of ,o"ers7 to ensure that the State
does not act 5ultra .ires4. 1ere is the bour&eoisie already secure enou&h in the 6self-
re&ulation7 of ci.il society (or bur&erliche Aesellschaft+ to circumscribe State
6interference7 in the economy and society. (9ut recall %eumann4s admonishment on
5laissez faire state4.
&y the time 'mith translated (ergusons ci"il society into ci"ilised society,
both had substituted the )oc*ean +uridical definition of ci"il society ,ith one
that embodied economic functions as ,ell (the di"ision of labour% but ,ithout
the forceful historical ac-uisition.imposition though ,ith the )oc*ean
con"ention.institution / of these functions (as ,ell as the rights% as seen by
0obbes/1ande"ille$ ('ee &obbio, 2ramsci e la soc$ci"$, p$23$% ()efer to discussion
of 5acquisitionNinstitution4 in7#i.Soc H4.+
)ecall also #arl Schmitt4s >in 8eo Strauss4s critique? re-elaboration of the olitical as
1obbes4s 5status naturae4 as the inter,lay of 6friend and foe4, "hich is also "hat 1obbes
en.isa&es as the relation bet"een So.erei&n States. Strauss says that Schmitt "ants to
e/it the liberal state "hile 1obbes "anted to e/it the Schmittian 5olitical4.+
#I88ETTI $%2 *$)P
reludeE 2ETIQ) I% *$%2ECI88EE
-nd this is also where Mandeville and Smith can be distinguished1 Mandeville, li+e
2ousseau, senses the force of the 3eviathan!, that is, the social violence based on
cheap and plentiful labour needed to erect the civilised societ that Smith ta+es for
granted and whose role he sees onl as protecting pre,existing propert rights " the
ver 4ices that Mandeville lampoons# This is something that 2ousseau, instead,
openl and violentl denounces, *ust as Mandeville would have if he had followed the
rigourism that he espoused but ultimatel ridiculed given the selfish,utilitarian human
scientific,empirical realit that he witnessed as the inevitable product of human nature#
$t is interesting that Mandeville calls the sstem of needs consistentl 3abour# This is
reminiscent of Hegel!s -rbeit and ultimatel of Schopenhauer!s 3ebenswille# The
problem that Mandeville never confronts is to explain how a societ based on self,
interest can reproduce at all " what, in other words, constitutes the social snthesis,
the co,ordination of the various 3abours, the transformation of individual needs into
a sstem of needs# This is what Smith will attempt but convenientl neglecting
Mandeville!s paradox, in terms of the overall direction of the sstem of needs
&5ublic+ Benefits(# Both fail to answer the most basic 0uestions of 6conomics1 7hat
is 5ublic+ about 5rivate vices8 7hat allows private labours to be exchanged8 7e
will see, through .olletti, that even Marx did not address the first 0uestion ade0uatel if
at all, and this neglect caused him to give onl a partial and ambivalent answer to the
second 0uestion#
(I ha.e to inter,ose #olletti4s 5$..ertenza4 at the front of the book ackno"led&in& his
6e/,eriment7 in seekin& to a,,ly the 6theory of .alueNfetishism7 inter,retation of *ar/4s
"ork or the 6re.olutionary science7 a,,roach. The ,oint of ho" #olletti subordinates the
,olitical reality of the "a&e relation to the la" of .alue is illustrated on ,.H!< "here, u,on
confutin& 9ernstein4s re,roach of 6absolute immiseration7 a&ainst *ar/, #olletti ar&ues,
contra )obinson as "ell, that not only does *ar/ allo" for risin& real "a&es, but also for
risin& e/,loitation e.en in that e.ent, because 6i nostril biso&ni e i nostril &odimenti7 are
not measured only in 6,hysical7 terms, but measured also in terms of 6ra,,orti sociali7.
$,art from the reducti.e em,hasis on 6biso&ni e &odimenti7, #olletti still subtends the
,olitical control o.er 6la 5so&&etti.ita4 o ener&ia la.orati.a7 : a&ain reducti.e descri,tion :
to 6la teoria del .alore come teoria dell4 alienazione7. %o", if "e confine oursel.es to
6alienation7 as the Trennun&, then "e a&ree "ith #olletti. 9ut the "hole ,art about a
6la"7 of .alue and the 68ukacsian7 ,hantasma&oria of alienationNreification is really, the
first, not hel,ful, and the second increasin&ly irrele.ant as ca,italist industryN,olitics
threatens to destroy the 6commodified7 ecos,here, "hose use .alue is im,ossible to
mystify any lon&er. What is &ettin& harder to mystify is the "a&e relation itself, of course,
that is the command o.er li.in& labour that can no lon&er be Mustified throu&h the mere
6system of needs7 or 6biso&ni e &odimenti7. The dan&er "ith #olletti4s stance he himself
e.inces in the ne/t section about ho" Aerman social democracy and 6reformism7 usually
emer&e from the notion of 6e.oluzione economica7 a4 la 9ernstein. recisely. The
,roblem is not 6the system of needs7 but the full emanci,ation of li.in& acti.ity.
$&ain, "hen describin& 6l4unita4 di economia e sociolo&ia7 in *ar/ >,,.H!ff and quotin&
Schum,eter?, #olletti retreats to 2ella Col,e4s 6unita4 di etero&enei7 "hich is a so,histry
"orthy of a mediae.al &lossator.+
Ine of *ar/4s &reatest intuitions concerns this ,ointE 6the ca,italist does not ,ay the
collaboration of "orkers in the ,rocess of ,roduction70 $nd that is ,recisely "here
Smith4s 6ci.ilised society7 rescues him a&ainst #olletti and *ande.ille4s 6,arado/7.
#uriously, #olletti u,braids 2obb and Iskar 8an&e for this .ery reason
>5*ar/ismoEScienza o )i.oluzioneL4?E- their treatment of 6the 8a" of Calue7 as an
6economic la"7 rele.ant to all 6economic analysis or science7. 9ut "hen #olletti obMects
that they are "ron&, he bases himself on the 6reification7 that the ca,italist 6,rocess of
,roduction7 o,erates and, es,ecially, the role of 6li.in& labour7 in this ,rocess. %o", this
is e/actly "hat Smith does 5,re-historically4 : li&ht years behind *ar/4s Arundrisse, of
course, and 1e&el4s 6abstract labour7 : because he 6,resumes7 the 6sociality7 of the
,roducti.e ,rocess but fails to distin&uish it from the 6Trennun&7. It is this failure that is
all-im,ortant here, not #olletti4s 6immiseration-,arado/7 (6la ricchezza ,iu4 sicura consiste
in una massa di ,o.eri laboriosi7, as he quotes *ande.ille, ,.;=H+.
9ut in equatin& "hat he calls 6the theory of .alue7 "ith 6the theory of fetishism7, #olletti
fails to ,roceed from 6alienation7 re,resented by the 6to,sy-tur.y7, u,side-do"n and
hence 6,arado/ical7 "orld of ca,italist market economies ("hether by absolute or
relati.e or ,olitical 6immiseration7+ to the 6command of dead o.er li.in& labour7 intrinsic
to the ,rocess of ,roduction and to the 6barrier7 of the Arundrisse. #olletti certainly
understands that the ca,italist sees the ,rocess of ,roduction as 6an attribute, a ,ro,erty
of ca,ital7, and then traces the 6reification7 of commodities as inde,endent 6.alues7. $nd
he does dra" the e.ident 6,olitical7 im,lications of this : the ca,italist command in the
labour ,rocess (see ,.H!< "ith hea.y scoldin& of 3.)obinson for assumin& firstly that
*ar/ 6fi/es7 "a&es absolutely >,hysical cost of "orkers4 re,roduction? and, if not,
secondly, that the only difficulty "ith ca,italism is the e/istence of ,rofit as a 6sur,lus7
that should be ,aid to "orkers >the %eo-)icardian, or "hat I used to call at #ambrid&e
6the Sraffian ruffian ,osition7 : 6ruffian7 of the bour&eoisie, that is?+.
What #olletti does not see, ho"e.er, is that 6the limit to ca,ital is ca,ital itself7. The
entire critical stand,oint of the 5Arundrisse4 eludes him com,letely. 1o"e.er much real
"a&es may rise, the ineluctable condition of the "a&e relation is that 6li.in& labour7 be
al"ays 6on the .er&e of absolute ,o.erty7, of unem,loyment and inability to ,ro.ide for
itself. That this condition is softened and mediated by a myriad institutional and social
6safety nets7 does not absol.e ca,ital from im,osin& this ultima ratio on li.in& labour0
(See 8oasby on Smith and 5co-ordination4 as a matter of life and death0 >In 5Equil.REcon4,
,.HS?+. (#acciari, in ens.%e&., ,,H;S-H, has one of the most de.astatin& re-statements
of these ,oints.+
That #olletti falls short here is illustrated by his early ,ara&ra,hs in the essay on
6)ousseau e la #ritica della Societa4 #i.ile7. 1ere once a&ain, he erects Smith4s and
-ant4s .ision of 6ci.il society7 and the 6di.ision of labour7 as the ,roducts of 6e&oistic
interests7 or 6self-interest7, only to see them 6reconciled7 by the 6in.isible hand7. #olletti
,ounces on the 6contradiction7 (or 6,arado/7 as "ith *ande.ille+. 9ut there is no
6contradiction7 or 6,arado/7 if it can be sho"n that 6self-interest7 is 6mediated7 throu&h
6the di.ision of labour7, that is, increased 6,roducti.ity7, "hich is certainly "hat Smith
(and -antL+ did : but not so )ousseau, "ho denied the 6,ro&ressi.e7 as,ects of the
di.ision of labour, or *ande.ille, "ho ,ostulated the 1obbesian 6ferity7 of humans, "hich
by definition makes their 6self-interests7 irreconcilable in the 6mors tua, .ita mea7 sense,
and indeed may "ell ha.e assimilated the 1obbesian 6Trennun&7.
9ecause #olletti only sees the "a&e relation in terms of 6absolute or relati.e
immiseration7, because he u,holds 6the theory of .alue7, thou&h in its more com,ellin&
.ersion as 6the theory of fetishism7, that is the 6crystallisation7 of li.in& labour as
6abstract labour7 in the 6commodity7 throu&h 6e/chan&e .alue7 and 6market circulation7,
he then has to insist on the e/treme 6irreconcilability7 of Smith4s schema : the
6contradiction7 bet"een 6self-interest7 and 6the social harmony7 or 6in.isible hand7
o,erated by the market mechanism. 9ut here there are t"o as,ects of 6the in.isible
hand7E the first is the 6co-ordination ,roblem7 or 6equilibrium7 ("hich can e/tend also to
6e/ternalities7, thou&h it is too early to introduce this ulterior ,roblem that e.en *ar/ did
not foresee, and certainly not #olletti+, "here clearly 6the in.isible hand7 is an 6a,oretic7
deus e/ machina that miraculously 6reconciles7 ,ri.ate 6self-interest7 "ith the &ro"in&
6"ealth of the nation7. 1ere #olletti hits the markE Smith does not see 6the ,arado/7
because he equates 6e/chan&e7 "ith 6the di.ision of labour7.
1ar4s failure to tac*le e4ternalities re"eals an analogous failure to see the
mar*et and the )a, of 5alue or socially necessary labour time as scientistic
fictions$ 6ndeed one can e"en dispute 1ar4s reductionist notion of production
in"ol"ing industry as the essence of social life$ 7ot until the 82rundrisse does
1ar4 abandon the attachment to social reproduction and socially necessary
labour time$ 9here is a bad sense in ,hich 1ar4 accepts the reality of
competition, of struggle or dira necessitas or e"en scarcity and then
attributes both the theory of "alue (crystallised, abstract labour% and capitalist
anarchy.irrationality only to a lac* of co/ordination.planning due to
competition, on one side, and fetishism on the other$ 'ee abo"e all Colletti,
p$:2;$ Collettis siding ,ith ',ee<y in arguing that "alue and planning are as
different as capitalism and socialism sho,s inconfutably and transparently the
confusion that he, and 1ar4, ma*e$ 8#rises4 are seen as 6mismatches7, as lack of co-
ordination (o.er,roductionNunderconsum,tion+, rather than as the ,layin& out of "a&e-
relation anta&onism. $nd 6irrationality7 is attributed to 6fetishism7 (8ukacs+.
The 6market ,rice mechanism7 does not re,lace 6the social fabric70 The market cannot
re,lace the 6ci.il society7 and its 6State-form7 "ith a 6,rice mechanism7 or 6e/chan&e7
that allo" its 6self-re&ulation7. 9ut both Smith and unfortunately *ar/ are attracted by
this fiction of the 6market7 : hence #olletti4s a,,rehension of 6confusion7 in *ar/ as "ell
as in Smith. *ar/ is ri&htly confused because he al"ays sa" 6the market7 not as a
s,ecific set of 6social institutions7 that require the e/istence of a 6statualised ci.il
society7, a 6ci.il society7 "hose or&anisationNIrdo already ,resu,,oses 6the State70 It is
by lea.in& the State-in-ci.il-society, the Trennun&, outside of the equation that Smith
(blindly+ and *ar/ (confusedly+ can 6distin&uishNse,arate7 the di.ision of labour from
6market e/chan&e7 and to e/amine the latter as a 6self-re&ulatin& equilibratin&
mechanism7, a 6balance7, an 6equi.alence7 that satisfies 6the 8a" of Calue70 (It4s *ar/4s
famous 6fascination "ith method7 >incantesimo del metodo or 6method4s charm7?.+
In the absenceNim,ossibility of such 6equilibrium-throu&h-e/chan&e7, the only source of
6co-ordination7 is the real relationshi,s of ,o"er in ca,italist society. #olletti sees these,
but not as 6centralNcrucialNessential7 to 6ca,italist social relations of ,roduction7 : "hich
is "hy he acce,ts *ande.ille4s 6,arado/7 ("ith 3.)obinson+ as 6immiseration7 or, once it
is ar&ued with Smith that this does not occur in reality (real "a&es increase+, as 6relati.e
immiseration7 or e.en stiflin& of 6so&&etti.ita47 throu&h the theory of .alueNalienation
(,.H!<+. #olletti and *ar/ need 6alienation7 as 6immiseration7 or 6inequality7 because it is
the only thin& that they can identify that makes ca,italism unacce,table : its 6,arado/7 is
merely its 6anarchy of misery amidst riches7. #olletti and *ar/ truly try 6to square the
circle7, reconcile the irreconcilable : demonstrate the 6effecti.eness7 of the 68a" of
Calue7 "hilst insistin& on its 6,arado/7 due to the 6anarchy of the com,etiti.e market7.
Smith in.oked 6the in.isible hand7. #olletti and *ar/ in.oke 6the theory of .alue as
fetishism7. Inly in the Arundrisse did *ar/ consistently abandon this chimera and
introduce 6the anta&onism of the "a&e relation7 as the foundation of ca,italism. #olletti
does not see this, but "hen he ,ercei.es the chan&e in *ar/ he calls it a 6confusion7.
What Smith and #olletti and *ar/ fail to see is that 6the market7 of economic analysis,
"hether #lassical or %eo-classical or *ar/ist, cannot (0+ achie.e this 6synthesis7 in any
case0 There is no 6equilibrium7, nor is one ,ossible because of ca,italist anta&onismE
crisis mana&ement is the essence of ca,italism not because its 6com,etiti.e market
anarchy7 or 6disturbancesNshocks7 (Storun&en+ lead to a di.er&ence from 6equilibrium7 :
but rather because 6economic7 cate&ories are 6,olitical7 not 6quantitati.e7, es,ecially in
an anta&onistic society. (Ine is reminded here of 1ayek4s and recently Brank 1ahn4s
attem,ts to shift 6equilibrium7 from a 6quantitati.e7 to an 6information-based7 conce,t0+
#olletti ,oints out that both )ousseau and Smith confuse the 6di.ision of labour7 "ith
6e/chan&e7. In a lon& footnote, he e/,lains that 6the di.ision of labour7 is an ineluctable
as,ect of human co-o,eration "hereas 6market e/chan&e7 is s,ecific to 6,re-ca,italist7
societies and leads ine/orably to ca,italist societyE- 6synthesis throu&h the market7,
reconciliation throu&h ,rices. 9ut this is sim,ly not ,ossible (0+ and it is only by resortin&
to 6the in.isible hand7 that Smith can o.ercome (fictitiously+ its im-,ossibility0
Indeed, and this is a ,oint of ,aramount im,ortance, #olletti and *ar/ uncritically see
the ,assa&e from 6market e/chan&e7 to 6ca,italist economy7 as bein& absolutely
ineluctable : "ithout the all-im,ortant historically .iolent 6,olitical7 factors that 2obb and
Tronti ha.e described in 6the transition7 from mercantile economies to the ca,italist
economy0 *ar/ often "rites as if the 6self-re&ulatin&7 osmosis of 6the market7 "ere
,ossible throu&h 6the la" of .alue7J.but then reMects it : he has to do so : because
other"ise ca,italist e/chan&e "ould become a 6closed system7, the circle "ould be
squared : then "e "ould ha.e the 6,arado/7 that makes *ande.ille 6reMoice7 (-aye4s
introduction to 6The Bable7+0 It "as this im-,ossibility for *ar/ 6to square the circle7 or to
transform 6.alues7 into 6market ,rices7 that enabled 9ohm-9a"erk to celebrate 6the
colla,se ($bschluss+ of *ar/4s system7 and his e/ecration of 6labour .alue7 as
6meta,hysics0
#olletti (and *ar/ in his 6confused7 moments, mi/in& 6di.ision of labour7 and 6>market?
e/chan&e7+, instead, needs to sho" that ca,italism is 6destructi.e7, not 6constructi.e7 :
#olletti sides "ith *ande.ille on 6ferity7 or im,ossibility of 6non-,arado/ical7 ci.il society
: and 6the market e/chan&e7 is the only "ay to his mind that this 6destructi.e7 di.ision of
labour can 6function7. 9ut if 6the market7 functions, then it can only be throu&h the
successful o,eration of 6the 8a" of Calue70 9ut then all that can be said about ca,italism
is that it is mere 6theft of labour .alue7, that its 6"ealth7 &oes to&ether "ith the
6immiseration7 (absolute or relati.e or 6alienated7+ of "orkers : "hich is "hat the %eo-
)icardians say (,olitics determines distribution, rate of ,rofit and, therefore, 6.alue7+0 So
"hen #olletti addresses the %eo-)icardian 2obb and )obinson he can only lose himself
in .a&ue disquisitions about 6reification7 and 6alienation7 and 6o"nershi,7 of the ,rocess
of ,roduction. #olletti does not see that 6anta&onism7 is intrinsic to the ,rocess of
,roduction and distribution.
6#ommodification7 is not an im,ortant element : only a 1e&elian remnant from the
6youn& *ar/7. #olletti could not concei.e of 6social ca,ital7. *ar/ could, in the
Arundrisse es,ecially, "hich is "hy #olletti correctly notes his 6confusion7 "hene.er
*ar/ ,ercei.es that 6market e/chan&e7 cannot 6co-ordinate7 ca,italist industry : a
6confusion7 that #olletti correctsJ.erroneously acce,tin& the 6effecti.eness7 of the
6market mechanism7 to .alidate its 6,arado/icalNanarchical7 *ande.illean effects. #olletti
seeks to achie.e "hat Smith could not0 Smith introduces 6the in.isible hand7 because he
does not acce,t *ande.ille4s 6,arado/7 and 6market e/chan&e7 cannot function "ithout
it. #olletti says 6the market7 can function "ithout 6in.isible hand7 but "ith 6the ,arado/7.
$nd "hen 9ohm-9a"erk 6closes the book7 (Tronti+ because he finds out that *ar/ could
not ,ro.e 6the 8a" of Calue7, #olletti criticises 2obb for sayin& this is due to 6.alue7
bein& 6an abstract a,,ro/imation7. #olletti seems to think that the 8a" of Calue is
effecti.e because there is absolute or relati.e 6immiseration7 or 6theft of labour time7
(sur,lus .alue+ realised throu&h 6abstract labour7 embodied in 6commodities or
e/chan&e .alues sold and ,urchased in the market7. The ca,italist market is central to
#olletti4s and *ar/4s understandin& of ca,italist relations of ,roduction : e/ce,t in the
6Arundrisse7.
)ecall also that Smith4s 6ci.ilised society7 is based on Ber&uson4s 6ci.il society7Jand
8ocke4s. Their 6self-interest7 is an 6enli&htened 5self-interest47 similar to that of 1obbes4s
indi.iduals in the 6status naturae7 "hose 6reason7 and fear o.ercome their baser
instincts to a&ree to a contract 6abdicatin&7 their ri&hts (e/ce,t that of thou&ht+ to the
So.erei&n. (9ut 1obbes4 5So.erei&n4 itself is 6enli&htened7 in a (9enthamite+ 6utilitarian7
"ay (the &reatest &ood for the &reatest number+ : because it has an inter-est in not
abusin& its 6mechanical7 ,o"er. 9ut "hy and ho", &i.en its 6mechanicity7L+
1ande"ille -uotes from =aye 6ntro>
On charity halls and wages:
One other article in Mandevilles economic creed demands attention herehis notorious attack upon
the charity-schools. Mandevilles case against them was, briefly, as follows: obody will do
unpleasant work unless he is compelled to by necessity. !here is, however "i. #$$%, &'bundance of
hard and dirty (abour to be done. ow, poverty is the only means of getting people to do this
necessary work: men &have nothing to stir them up to be serviceable but their )ants, which it is
*rudence to relieve, but +olly to cure "i. $,-%. ational wealth, indeed, consists not in money, but "i.
./0% in &a Multitude of laborious *oor. 1ince, therefore, it would be ruinous to abolish poverty, and
impossible to do away with unpleasant labour, the best thing to do is to recogni2e this fact, and help
adapt the poor to the part they have to play. 3ut charity-schools, by educating children above their
station and thus leading them both to e4pect comforts they will not have and to loathe occupations
they must engage in, are subversive of the future happiness and usefulness of the scholars: 5 to divert
5 6hildren from useful (abour till they are fourteen or fifteen 7ears old, is a wrong Method to
8ualify them for it when they are grown up.$
+inally, he attacked the schools on the ground that they interfered with the natural ad9ustment of
society: 5 proportion as to umbers in every !rade finds it self, and is never better kept than when no
body meddles or interferes with it..
!he gusto of Mandevilles assault on the charity-schools, and his incidental attack on what he termed
the &*etty :everence for the *oor "i. #$$%, is apt to impress the modern reader as almost incredibly
brutal. 3ut that is because the Essay is 9udged from a humanitarian point of view which hardly e4isted
in Mandevilles time. 1een in historical perspective, there is nothing unusually harsh in Mandevilles
position. !he age was not interested in making the labourer comfortable, but in making his work cheap
and plentiful.# 1ir )illiam *etty was no friendlier than Mandeville to the poor when he termed them
&the vile and brutish part of mankind; - even so ardent an upholder of the rights of man as 'ndrew
+letcher urged that labourers be returned to a condition of slavery; < and Melon, too, advised slavery.$
!he truth is that, although Mandevilles attack on the charity-schools caused great scandal at the
time,. his adversaries were really as little desirous as Mandeville to lessen the labourers work or raise
his wages.
Mandeville, indeed, was perhaps more considerate of the condition of the labourer than was the
average citi2en, for he felt at least the need of answering what could be urged on the other side:
On difference with =tilitarianism, >?armony@:
ow, at first, a reader who is aware of certain resemblances between 1haftesbury and
Mandeville may wonder 9ust why their two systems show such an antithesis. 1haftesbury,
for e4ample, 9oined with Mandeville in decrying philosophical systems,$ and agreed that
private advantage harmoni2es with the public good. !hese agreements, however, are
really superficial. 'lthough 1haftesbury declaimed against system-makers, he was
himself notorious for his system. Andeed, he saw the world as so perfectly and beautifully
co-ordinated a piece of divine mechanism that he denied the very e4istence of evil, on
which Mandeville built his philosophy.. 'nd, whereas to Mandeville the totality to which
each particular act contributed so perfectly was the actual work-a-day world, to
1haftesbury it was the universe from the point of view of the )hole. !heir entire
emphasis, too, was different. 1haftesbury said, 6onsider the )hole and the individual
will then be cared for; Mandeville said, 1tudy the individual and the )hole will then look
after itself. !o 1haftesbury, also, the coincidence of public and private good was due to an
enlightened benevolence, whereas to Mandeville it was the result of narrow self-seeking
Mandeville believing men completely and inevitably egoistic, 1haftesbury thinking
them endowed with altruistic and gregarious feeling "see below, i. ##B, n. $%. !his is a
fundamental distinction, for Mandevilles whole conception of the rise and nature of
society was determined by his belief in the essential egoism of human nature, and
1haftesburys, by his faith in the actuality of altruism.$
On reason as being sub9ect to passions: 1ee AC, $
'll ?uman 6reatures are swayd and wholly governd by their *assions, whatever fine
otions we may flatter our 1elves with; even those who act suitably to their Dnowledge,
and strictly follow the Eictates of their :eason, are not less compelld so to do by some
*assion or other, that sets them to )ork, than others, who bid Eefiance and act contrary
to 3oth, and whom we call 1laves to their *assions "Origin of Honour, p. #$%
'lso related to the anti-rationalism we are considering was that other form of anti-rationalism,
mentioned above, which denied the ability of the reason to arrive at final truth. !his philosophical
anarchism, a commonplace of :enaissance thought,. is found in Mandeville closely interwoven with
his psychological anti-rationalism,# and evidently contributed towards it.'nother probable
contributing influence was an opinion kindred to the Fpicureanism of the seventeenth century; A mean
the opinion that men cannot help living for what seems to their advantage. 1uch a conception, which
allows the reason no function e4cept that of discovering and furthering what the organism desires,
needs only to have its implications made clear to become anti-rationalism. ow, Mandeville
propounds this belief that men cannot help acting for what seems to their profit.- 1till another agent
conducing to anti-rationalism may have inhered in the discussions of the century concerning animal
automatism. 'dd to the belief that animals are machines the belief that they feel, as Gassendi argued;
and, with Gassendi, place man in the category of animals: man is then a sentient machine. +rom this
position it is easy to progress to a deterministic psychology in which reason is little more than a
spectator of physical reactions. 'nd Mandeville had embraced the Gassendist positions.$
On influences:
!hat the Fable often parallels and sometimes derives from ?obbes is evident from my annotations to
the te4t, and, indeed, some indebtedness to ?obbes was inevitable at that period of thought. 's early
as his college days Mandeville had studied ?obbes, for he disagreed with him in his Disputatio
Philosophica "$B/,%, sign. '#
v
. 'mong their chief points of similarity is their analysis of human
nature. !o ?obbes also the mainspring of social action was egoism: man was a selfish animal, and
society, conse8uently, artificial:
'll society 5 is either for gain, or for glory; that is, not so much for love of our fellows, as for the
love of ourselves "English Works, ed. Molesworth, ii. <; cf. also Leviathan, pt. $, ch. $#%.
'nd to ?obbes as well, the love of virtue was derivable &from love of praise "Engiish Works iii. /0%.
3oth men, too, denounced the search for a universal summum bonum "cf. English Works iii. /<%, and,
denying the &divine original of virtue, thought morality a human product. &)here no law, no in9ustice
was ?obbess dictum "iii. $$<%. 3ut in the midst of this similarity there was a very important
difference. ?obbes maintained that
!he desires, and other passions of men, are in themselves no sin. o more are the actions, that proceed
from those passions, till they know a law that forbids them 5 "iii. $$-%.
Mandeville, however, when identifying current moralities with custom, did not say that genuine virtue
and vice are thus dependent, but only that mens opinions of them are. !o Mandeville men in the &state
of nature were ipso facto wicked, as being unredeemed from their primal degeneracy "cf. below, i. -H,
n. $%.
An his account of the origin of society in *art AA Mandeville is closer to ?obbess discussion of this
matter in his Philosophical Ruiments concerning !overnment an "ociety and his Leviathan than to
any other predecessor "cf. below, i. 4cii, n. $%.
At is not, however, possible to gauge Mandevilles indebtedness to ?obbes with much accuracy, since
most of what Mandeville shares with ?obbes he shares also with other predecessors such as 3ayle and
(a :ochefoucauld. ?obbes and Mandeville, besides, were both in the same current of speculation, and
it is therefore always possible that Mandevilles resemblances to ?obbes were due not so much to
immediate influence as to the effect of a stream of thought which ?obbes had done so much to direct.
An the case of (ocke also, although Mandeville cites him and shows kinship to him, it is not possible
to be certain how much he was influenced by him directly, and how much indirectly through the
medium of an age which (ocke had so greatly affected.
?A''A2@ 9A C656) 'AC6@9B ;> 7@AC)A''6CA) 90@ACB
This is "here the 6ci.il society7 and Musnaturalism of 8ocke and follo"ers is
indis,ensable to #lassical olitical Economy. 9ut not to %eoclassical Theory, because
here the indi.idual is truly an 5atom4 : indeed he is a 6ci,her70 - and 5society4 is only a
5market4 (a multitude of 6ci,hers7 or 6,oints7+, a locus of e/chan&e. (#om,are 8oasby4s
,oint, from 2emsetz, that ,erfect co-ordination is im,lied in ,erfect com,etition, "hich
he calls 6,erfect sla.ery7. Indeed, 6>i?ts a,,ro,riate name is ,erfect decentralisation7 >RE,
,.HD?.+ The State can only &uarantee 5com,etiti.e beha.iour4@ its functions lie 5outside4
the 5autonomous s,here of the economy4 (S4s 6Welt der Wirtschaftlichens7+. The
%eoclassical 5State4 "ould be more a 1obbesian So.erei&n, either a 6ni&ht"atchman
state7 or a 6ni&ht and day State7 de,endin& on the le.el of social 6,eace7, because of the
6autonomy7 of the ,olitical s,here and the 6mechanicity7 of its statute and the 6atomicity7
of its 6indi.iduals7. The 1obbesian So.erei&n is a 6homo artificialis7, only a contractual
arran&ement, but its raison d4etat is the ,reser.ation of its subMects4 6commoda .itae7,
6delectatio7, 6iucundissime et beate .i.ere7 reminiscent of 9enthamite utilitarianism, so
that it "ould not en&a&e in unnecessary acti.ities. 9ut, a&ain, "hy and ho", &i.en that
the subMects ha.e contractually alienated their 6ri&hts7 under the 6ius naturale7 to the
So.erei&n in the 5status ci.ilis4L
The %eoclassical .ision is a 6ne&ati.e-,essimistic7 one, reminiscent of and consistent
"ith Scho,enhauer4s Entsa&un&. It is interestin& to see 1ayek (in 5Indi.idualism4+ and
Schum,eter (in 5E,ochen4 quoted by #olletti+ treatin& *ande.ille and Smith in the same
breath : 6This "ork >5The Bable4? constitutes the best and clearest re,resentation that the
e&oistic interest of the indi.idual ser.es in the economic field an essential social
functionJSe.eral sentences sho" that Smith "as under the influence of *ande.ille,7 (in
#olletti, IRS, ,.;<;+.
Similarly "ith 1ayek, "ho mentions *ande.ille and Smith as ,ro,onents and ,recursors
of his e/,osition of 6indi.idualism7 "ithout seein& the need to qualify his a,,robation.
The $ustrians "ould em,hasise the 6s,ontaneous freedom of choice7 of indi.iduals
rather than their 6e&oistic interest7. In no account "ould they dra" attention to the
6socialisationNrationalisationNconcentration7 of ca,italist industry : somethin& that
)ousseau (disa,,ro.in&ly, see quotation in #olletti+ and Smith to Weber did. This is
,erha,s one as,ect "here Schum,eter breaks ranks, Must as he does "ith the 6crisis-
cycle-de.elo,ment7 theory.
9ut careful to consider the 5*ono,olfra&e4 from both sidesE a ,roduct of anta&onism, "ith
all that im,lies in terms of 6socialisation7 and 6control7 (cf. #acciari on the
5Ir&anisationsfra&e4+.