Abstract In “The Economic Machine and the Invisible Hand” (2009), Murray Milgate argues that the mechanistic thrust of twentieth-century economics owes more to Paul Samuelson than to Adam Smith inasmuch as Samuelson’s Economics “unambiguously associated the invisible hand with the efficiency of perfectly competitive equilibrium.” The textbook model of perfect competition, though analytically a special case, conveys an ideologically potent vision of economic life as atomistic, amoral, and exclusively market-based. This essay presents a prima facie case for two related claims: (1) the textbook view of Adam Smith’s economics ignores the analytic symmetries and complementarities between Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) and Wealth of Nations (WN) and thus misrepresents the structure and implications of Smith’s moral philosophy, and (2) TMS and WN both theorize the behavioral, institutional, and ethical foundations for and enduring pathologies of extensive cooperation in commercial societies characterized by structural inequality, factionalism, elitism, ethnocentrism, and corruption.

中文翻译：

---

萨缪尔森之后的史密斯：社会纠缠世界中的关怀与伤害

摘要 在“经济机器和看不见的手”（2009 年）中，默里·米尔盖特认为，二十世纪经济学的机械推动力更多地归功于保罗·萨缪尔森，而不是亚当·斯密，因为萨缪尔森的经济学“明确地将看不见的手与效率完全竞争均衡。” 完全竞争的教科书模型虽然在分析上是一个特例，但传达了一种意识形态上强大的经济生活愿景，即原子论、不道德和完全基于市场的经济生活。本文提出了两个相关主张的初步证据：（1）亚当·斯密经济学的教科书观点忽略了斯密的道德情操理论（TMS）和国富论（WN）之间的分析对称性和互补性，从而歪曲了结构和斯密的道德哲学的含义，