I really enjoyed reading William Hsu's post entitled, The Amoral Mr. Smith. Like Brian said, it was very level-headed, indeed.

It isn't one camp against the other...the money against the community...the profit against the revolution...they aren't mutually exclusive. You have to make money in order to make a difference. Truly. When you are busy starving and scrambling to put together next month's rent, saving the world will probably be the furthest thing from your mind. And, on the flipside, it's increasingly more difficult to make money if you don't consider the needs of the community (since they are usually your market). So, the two ideals may seem at odds, but a mutual understanding must be reached between them in order for them to maximize their success.

This takes us back to Laissez-faire, which has historically proven to be more than a little unbalanced. However today, when communication is so much easier in the marketplace, the workers and everyday people have alot more control over success and failure of businesses. As well, recent developments in the technology world anyway have demonstrated the value of human talent. In this economy, workers own the means of production more than ever.

So, what we have here is an Adam Smith / Karl Marx mashup. V. cool.

Omyidar, as quoted in Will's article, sums it up beautifully:

An organization that only focuses on their social good has difficulty scaling compared to those that focus on profits. With both, you get great people and you set them loose. ... With the full confidence that as they were pursuing returns they are making the world a better place.

Yin and Yang. Capitalism and socialism. Balance is good.