Introduction The first episode of the six-part mini-series Capitalism deals with the foundations of the economic system of capitalism. More exactly, it challenges the popular assumption that the modern, or industrial, capitalism was conceived by Adam Smith and instead suggests the alternative view of both the implications made by Smith and the roots of the system in the pre-Smithian era. While certain points, such as the historical, sociological, and anthropological grounds for the Smith’s work are persuasive and present a solid basis for further inquiry, some of the conclusions, such as the inherent malevolence of the system rooted in the slave trade and the unsubstantiated claims of the historical starting points are somewhat controversial and should be approached with skepticism. Analysis The film can be divided into three parts. The first part deals with Smith’s contribution to the theoretical basis of the system. Two points are raised here. First, Smith’s motivation is expanded with his interest in the social processes and the reason behind the principles governing modern societies. Additionally, the prevailing trust in science as a substitute for the declining theological framework is pointed out – the factors which are important for the understanding of the philosophical side of his work. Second, his assumption of the natural human capacity for trading and bartering as the origin of the economy is being challenged by the evidence provided by anthropologists ( Capitalism Episode 1 ). Both points offer good insights from economic, social, and anthropological standpoints and are consistent with the mainstream understanding of Smith’s work (Oslington 103). The second part attempts to offer an alternative explanation by studying the case of the conquest of the American continent and ascribing it the economic motivation. While this is hard to argue with, as the interest in gold and silver was among the primary motives of the conquistadors, its role in creating the free market is doubtful at best. According to the film creators, the debt was the reason behind embarking on the conquest in the first place. However, the existence of debt itself requires the existence of a bartering system that is widely accepted by society (Hunt and Lautzenheiser 420). The same can be said about the comparison made between Asian and European economies, which have made the transition to the silver-based economy roughly in the same period, but with the dramatically different results. The reason for that, according to the film, is the expansion strategy that was dominant in Europe in that period as well as the overabundance of silver resulting from the conquest ( Capitalism Episode 1 ). Again, while it is doubtlessly a powerful force behind the formation of the free market, it does not qualify as the reason for its emergence, only its alteration (Vries 82). The third part is the most controversial one. The authors suggest that the slave trade which was common in Europe is responsible for the emergence of capitalism. The emphasis here is on the suffering and maltreatment that slaves underwent while being transported and traded ( Capitalism Episode 1 ). However, the suggestion that capitalism is somehow inherently evil because it was founded on human suffering is a logical fallacy. The fact that slave trafficking is a form of market relations does not characterize the economic system – only the humanistic q