espanolDiscuto la manera en que la cientificidad que caracteriza a la economia politica de Adam Smith exterioriza el conflicto social para sostener la objetivacion del campo social en terminos de leyes regulativas. Argumento que esta exteriorizacion es un punto de subversion interno que no solamente resiste a la objetivacion economica, sino que empuja a Smith a emplear estrategias politicas que a la vez contradicen y garantizan la cientificidad de su teoria. Muestro como el lugar del conflicto en la economia moderna, segun Smith, puede ser determinado de tres modos distintos: un lugar concreto en las confrontaciones entre trabajadores y capitalistas; un lugar teorico como disturbio arbitrario de la organizacion espontanea del mercado; y un lugar que, en tanto que cruce entre la naturalizacion economica y la contingencia social, problematiza la cientificidad de la economia politica de Smith. Indago en este sentido tres casos en donde Smith invoca una circularidad argumentativa que revela la politica paradojica de su cientificidad economica, mas alla de la politica oficial de laissez-faire que la caracteriza: la coercion estatal, el poder monetario y la competencia capitalista. EnglishI discuss how the scientificity characterizing Adam Smith’s political economy has to exteriorize social conflict in order to sustain its objectivation of social interaction in terms of regulative laws. I claim that this exteriorization constitutes an internal point of subversion, not only because it resists economic objectivation, but first and foremost because it forces Smith to employ political strategies that both contradict and guarantee the scientificity of his theory. I show how the place of conflict in modern economy, according to Smith, can actually be determined in three different ways: as a concrete place when it comes to the confrontations between workers and capitalists; as a theoretical place in the sense of being an arbitrary disturbance of the spontaneous organization of the market; and as a place that, as being the intersection between economic naturalization and social contingency, problematizes the scientificity of Smith’s political economy. In this sense, I develop three cases where Smith invokes an argumentative circularity that reveals the paradoxical politics of his economic scientificity, beyond its official laissez-faire politics: State coercion, monetary power and capitalist competition.