Jeff Weintraub is quite correct about Adam Smith’s misrepresentation. Longwinded, but right. In summary, Adam Smith neglects dominance hierarchies and pack cooperation – errors even when Smith talks about dogs.
I’ll take that further than Jeff – hunting in packs always occurs in the context of a dominance hierarchy. So does “the market”, despite the fantasies of radical libertarians. Market transactions can only exist as a form of conscious cooperation (for instance between hunter-gatherer bands, each with its own dominance heirarchy, or between nation-states, each with its own internal heirarchy – and each nation operating within a de facto realpolitik dominance heirarchy of nations) or within an overarching dominance hierarchy that provides a method of redress against cheaters and thieves. Otherwise, cheating and thievery is the winning strategy[1,2]. Top down hierarchical systems are also never entirely free of market transactions. Market transactions spring up within apparently pure command and control. (North Korea, USSR) There are no pure systems. That too is a fiction.
One of the most interesting examples to me is the history of religious communist groups that functioned without money inside the group. Their internal near perfect social capital generated wealth remarkably effectively. This was common knowledge in the latter half of the 19th century, mostly based on hundreds of years of Christian pietist groups: from the Hutterites and Shakers, to the Amanites and Onieda Colony. Hundreds of years of experience filtered into intellectual circles, showing up in such theorists as the Fourierists.
That context was the intellectual basis for Marx’ adoption of communism. Those groups had hierarchies based on ideas of pious right living, and the outside punishment and reward of a god. The abstract dominance hierarchy of religion also enabled societies to be more stable. One can look at what happens in baboon troops during interregnums when a leader is deposed and new leaders have not yet established themselves. Like human societies when a leader dies, they are vulnerable to breakup, depredation. Having an abstract leader above all who are alive.
All of which casts the matter of the market into a quite different light. The market becomes something that only appears to be primary when the rest of what underlays social capital functions so well it becomes like the invisible water in which fish swim.