The problem Smith addressed himself is how in the broad arena of history itself, in terms of both long-lasting social evolution and immediate characteristics of the Smith-typical history, the inner struggle between the passions and the "impartial spectator" explained in Moral Sentiments in terms of the single person 's effects.

The connexion between this sequence of changes in the material base of production is evident, which each bring about its necessary modifications in the superstructure of laws and civil institutions and the Marxist conception of history. While the similarity is definitely noteworthy, the distinction is decisive: the motor of evolution in the Marxian scheme is essentially the battle between contending groups, whereas the original motor organisation in Smith 's philosophical history is a human existence, motivated by the desire for self development, directed by the faculty of reason (or misguided).

The way to establish an organised society would be a structure of complete liberty, functioning under the forces and restrictions of the human nature and intelligently built institutions. The issue already highlighted by previous authors required both an explanation of the underlying orderliness of the pricing of each product and an explanation of the 'rules' which governed the division of the nation's whole wealth into three major claimant groups – workers, landlords and manufacturers (labourers).

Therefore, the wealth of nations is far from the moral trend it always should be. While Smith preached laissez-faire (with notable exceptions), his point was more opposed to monopoly than to government, and although he admired the social effects of the acquisition process he almost always viewed businessmen with disdain in their ways and their manoeuvres. The commercial method itself was not seen by him as truly admirable.