One of my long-ago professors – not an economist, and not a political conservative – sometimes said that Adam Smith was just flat out deeper and more interesting than many of his critics, who often try to reduce him to a cardboard cutout disciple of free-market fundamentalism. For example, I’ve heard (uninformed) criticisms of Smith that he assumes everyone wants to buy and sell, when a number of people instead would prefer to dominate and take. Paolo Santori engages with this corner of Smith’s work in “Domination vs. Persuasion: The Role of Libido Dominandi in Adam Smith’s Thought” (The Review of Politics, 2025, 1–18).

Santori seems to prefer the Latin libido dominandi, but as he points out, Smith writes of “love of domination” and “love of domineer.” Here’s Smith’ discussion of desire to dominate, in the context of masters who want to dominate slaves, from The Wealth of Nations (Book III, Chapter 2). Smith wrote:

The experience of all ages and nations, I believe, demonstrates that the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any. A person who can acquire no property, can have no other interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little as possible. Whatever work he does beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own. In ancient Italy, how much the cultivation of corn degenerated, how unprofitable it became to the master when it fell under the management of slaves, is remarked by both Pliny and Columella. In the time of Aristotle it had not been much better in ancient Greece. …

The pride of man makes him love to domineer, and nothing mortifies him so much as to be obliged to condescend to persuade his inferiors. Wherever the law allows it, and the nature of the work can afford it, therefore, he will generally prefer the service of slaves to that of freemen. The planting of sugar and tobacco can afford the expence of slave-cultivation. The raising of corn, it seems, in the present times, cannot. In the English colonies, of which the principal produce is corn, the far greater part of the work is done by freemen. … In our sugar colonies, on the contrary, the whole work is done by slaves, and in our tobacco colonies a very great part of it. The profits of a sugar-plantation in any of our West Indian colonies are generally much greater than those of any other cultivation that is known either in Europe or America; and the profits of a tobacco plantation, though inferior to those of sugar, are superior to those of corn, as has already been observed. Both can afford the expence of slave-cultivation, but sugar can afford it still better than tobacco. The number of negroes accordingly is much greater, in proportion to that of whites, in our sugar than in our tobacco colonies.

Santori traces Smith’s ideas about the “love to domineer” across Smith’s other works, like The Moral Sentiments and the Lectures on Jurisprudence. He argues that other authors have sometimes interpreted the “pride” that Smith speaks of as the root of a “love to domineer” as a kind of vanity or a desire for the recognition of others.

Santori argues that a more persuasive interpretation is to think of “pride” in this context as a sin. He quotes Smith in The Moral Sentiments: “”The proud man does not always feel himself at ease in the company of his equals, and still less of that of his superiors.” Santori argues for this kind of pride, there is a pleasure in not needing to spend time or energy persuading or obtaining consent. Indeed, this “love to domineer” is strong enough, in Smith’s argument, that those who hold slaves are willing to give up some of the material benefits they could have from hiring free labor.

In this part of the Wealth of Nations, Smith is discussing the historical transition from feudal to commercial society. In that context, Santori argues:

We read in the Lectures on Jurisprudence (LJ) and Wealth of Nations (WN) that masters’ love of domination is what will make slavery or servitude perpetual, in contrast with masters’ real interest that would be fostered by having free men rather than enslaved people working for them. … Smith argued that the emergence of European commercial society, grounded on free-market exchanges between individuals based on persuasion, marginalized and undermined libido dominandi. However, he knew that commercial society could not eliminate libido dominandi and that, whenever socio-economic circumstances allow, human beings will try to dominate each other. He saw this in the colonies and in specific markets (colliers and salters). …

To Smith, commercial society is a more mature way of conceiving life in common and civil society. In contrast, love of domination expresses a childish wanting to obtain everything without effort. Human beings can flourish when they learn to live in a society where they cannot impose their aims. They must deal with others’ aims and opinions in relations based on persuasion rather than domination. Adult life in a commercial society requires something better than the love of domination. Here, I am expanding Smith’s argument, but hope to have remained faithful to his spirit.

A common complaint about so-called “free markets” is that there are times they don’t feel especially “free,” like when it’s time to go to work in the morning or when the bills are due. Moreover, hierarchies in commercial firms and markets do provide some scope for those who “love to domineer” to do so. But the “love to domineer” doesn’t go away in countries where markets and politics are not free–and can manifest itself in even more distasteful ways.

More By This Author: