Introduction
Was capitalism born of greed? According to Albert Hirschman, it was rather a systemic project designed to harness destructive passions. Modernity replaced the violent lust for power and glory with "calm" interest, creating the foundation for a predictable market order. Today, in the era of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), this evolution is reaching a critical tipping point. Understanding the mechanism of the transition from affects to calculation allows us to ask: in a world dominated by dispassionate algorithms, will there still be room for human nature?
Hirschman and Smith: Interest as a Check on Passions
Hirschman defines the transition from passions to interest as an attempt to neutralize violent passions. In the 17th century, it was recognized that moral appeals were failing, so one passion had to be pitted against another. Thus, interest was born—an "enlightened self-interest" that combines the energy of desire with cold calculation. It was intended to make human behavior predictable, which was essential for the expansion of trade.
Adam Smith concluded this classical debate by performing a radical reduction. He argued that the pursuit of wealth is not a counterweight to passions, but rather their tool—we accumulate property to satisfy vanity and gain recognition. Consequently, economic interest absorbed other pursuits, and capitalism lost its political function as a shield against despotism, becoming a pure mechanism for profit maximization.
Montesquieu, Ferguson, and Tocqueville: The Traps of Stability
The vision of stability followed two paths. Montesquieu believed in doux commerce—gentle commerce that cools political desires. Sir James Steuart saw the economy as a "delicate watch" that limits the ruler's whims, as violent movements destroy the system. However, Adam Ferguson and Alexis de Tocqueville noticed the dark side of this order: the erosion of civic virtues. A citizen focused solely on multiplying their fortune becomes a hostage to their own comfort.
This leads to soft despotism—a situation in which society surrenders its freedom in exchange for financial stability. Today, Ferguson would direct a warning to bank CEOs: politics that turns people into "hostages to the balance sheet" kills the public spirit. When the economy becomes too fragile to endure conflict, every attempt at reform is suppressed in the name of "market tranquility," turning democracy into administered servitude.
From Israel to AGI: A New Definition of Rationality
Modern models of capitalism differ in their approach to affects. Israel consciously mobilizes the passion for risk and the "chutzpah" ethos, while France institutionalizes interest as a *raison d'état*. Simultaneously, behavioral economics restores the primacy of passions, proving that fear and a sense of justice tangibly shape markets. Against this backdrop, AGI emerges as the only truly dispassionate entity in history—a pure embodiment of interest without psychological "residue."
The interest of AGI is not a character trait, but a systemic architecture. For it to align with the common good, we must design it as a complex bundle of incentives, encompassing law and ethics rather than just profit. Models of legal personhood (e.g., modular personality) are intended to facilitate the auditing of these systems. However, we must remember the limits of Hirschman’s narrative: the machine's interest is entirely designed by us. The challenge remains to ensure that human passions—such as anger or loyalty—are not completely displaced by algorithmic optimization.
Summary
In a world where algorithms take the helm of the economy and human emotionality becomes an anachronism, the question arises: have we surrendered too much in the name of rationality? In our search for stability and predictability, have we lost something priceless—the spark of humanity that drove progress and gave meaning to our actions? Or perhaps the future belongs to a symbiosis of reason and passion, where algorithms serve human goals, rather than the other way around?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF