A Comparison of the Economic Philosophies of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Marx

Melancton Smith was an anti- federalist and was not pleased with how the new Constitution was dealing with representation. Smith wished to see a large government and strongly believed in treating everyone equally no mater what social class they were in. Smith stated, “the number of representatives should be so large that both the rich and the poor people will choose to be representatives.”. Smith believed the people in the middle and lower class would support his views on having a government with no oppression. The lower and middle classes did not want to be seen as less

Adam Smith born 1723-1790 a Scottish philosopher and Economist. Defending the morals of acceptability of pursuing one's self- interest quoted in Document C “Every man is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.” Smith gains into the general utility of society knowns as the the invisible hand argument. In the Wealth of Nations smith reveals the interests of merchants and manufacturers were opposed to those of society and had a tendency of pursuing their own interest. Smith wasn’t one to let religious attitude stop his thinking. He believed that more wealth to common people would benefit a nation's economy and society as a whole, stated in the The Wealth of Nation. Smith’s main

The pivotal second chapter of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour," opens with the oft-cited claim that the foundation of modern political economy is the human "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."1 This formulation plays both an analytical and normative role. It offers an anthropological microfoundation for Smith's understanding of how modern commercial societies function as social organizations, which, in turn, provide a venue for the expression and operation of these human proclivities. Together with the equally famous concept of the invisible hand, this sentence defines the central axis of a new science of political economy

A nation is just a vast establishment, where the labour of each, however diverse in character, adds to the wealth of all. Two brilliant people of their time are both respected in their views for creating a near perfect society where everyone is happy. Adam Smith, a respected Scottish political economist philosopher born in 1723, had the goal of perfect liberty for all individuals through the capitalistic approach. While Karl Marx, born in 1818, believed in individual freedom for society and intellectually criticized capitalism giving reasons as to why it was irrational and why it would fail. Adam Smith’s very first sentence claims that, "The greatest improvement in the productive powers

Karl Marx and Adam Smith wrote in the same time period – during the industrial revolution, where the bourgeois had risen to power by oppressing and exploiting the proletariat. The term bourgeois refers to the people in the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor. The proletarians are the people in the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. While Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, wrote in favor of capitalism, Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, was a harsh critic of the system and declared its inevitable destruction and consequent rise of the working class.

Called the Father of Modern Economics, Adam Smith was an enormous advocate for private markets. He supported an economic system based on the decision making by individuals instead of the government. Smith felt that no one person or a group is fit to make decisions for a whole population of people and that the population knows how to make decisions for its welfare. In Smith’s mind, people work to supplement their own lives, and when people seek individual economic gain then they unexpectedly promote society and stimulate the economy subconsciously. If people earn more money by working harder then almost all people will work harder. Smith insinuates that people are naturally self preserving and by default selfish; but to a point. Everyone has something that they want and in this world most things can be obtained if a person has enough money. Smith believes that every man should be free to

Modern economic society can be described as a combination of certain points from several theories combined into one. Changing dynamics and economic needs of nations has spawned a development of various, and contrasting, economic systems throughout the world. Perhaps the two most contrasting philosophies seen in existence today are that of capitalism and communism. The two philosophers most notably recognized for their views on these economic systems are Adam Smith and Karl Marx. This paper will identify several fundamental aspects of economic philosophy as described by Smith and Marx, and will compare and contrast the views of these

In the conceptualization of the predominant 19th century political thought process, none- if any- were more influential than John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Both were philosophers, sociologists, economists and political thinkers, but each held unique views towards the ideal government, to freedom, and to the impact of the industrial revolution. Each discussed some of the ramifications of the industrial revolution, and the ways in which the government can be re-aligned for greater social prosperity. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated for Liberalism, a system in which liberty and equality would remain at the forefront of all political proposals, and representative interests. Mill celebrated individuality, and the ability to not conform to a higher power. In contrast to Mill, Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a revolutionary socialist who advocated for a complete social revolution throughout society, in an effort to counter the ill perceived effects of capitalism. Marx’s central tenet relied upon the fact that he sought to abolish private property, and monopolies, so as to enable all individuals to acquire an equitable means of living. Marx’s belief was that capitalism forces the economy into constantly being exploited, which in turn leads to recessions. Mill believed that all power should be allocated to the individual; whereas Marx believed that bestowing such power within a socialist regime would allow for the creation of a truly egalitarian society. This paper will analyze how

Smith, however, was of the opinion that Mercantile System was deeply flawed. Firstly, as given in the Fourth Book (3) of the Wealth of Nations, he argued that the real wealth of a nation was “not in the unconsumable riches of money, but in the consumable goods annually reproduced by the labour of the society”. (4) Secondly, the balance of trade, as observed by him, often did little to enhance the wealth of a nation and instead served to create violent national animosity instead. He instead put forth the idea of a balance of annual production and consumption, which if it were unfavourable would have caused a decay of the wealth of a nation. Thirdly, Prof. Smith was a strong critic of the idea of colonialism; stating that, “To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. Such statesmen, and such statesmen only, are capable of fancying that they will find some advantage in employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens, to found and maintain such an empire.”(5) The implication being that the idea of colonialism was of an extremely oppressive nature, beneficial only to the colonial

While the theme of Bradford’s works was centered on God, the dangers of prosperity, and the need for a united community for survival, Smith’s letters and books seemed revolved around the benefits of prosperity and personal gain. The facts of both need to be

Adam Smith’s and his system have one substantial enemy threat, monopolies. Throughout his life, Adam Smith has warned us about monopolies forming and destroying competition and taking control over government and society. Adam Smith preached for the absolute need for government regulations when it comes to capitalism. Monopolies consist of businessmen who control a specific product in the market with no competition or substitutions. Monopolies favor the business people’s interests, not the society’s interests which hurts capitalism substantially. Businessmen have goals to make themselves more money, not for the public good. In order to do that, they work hand in hand with government officials and politicians to propose and enact laws that

Adam Smith's "Book Wealth Of nations" discusses his philosophy and motivation for salaried labor. Smith argued that the institution was just one more artificial restraint on individual self-interest. "THIS division of labor, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature, which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."

The system of capitalism and also called a laissez-faire system. The system operates on the principle of free market, where the role of the government is very limited. The main tasks of the government, as provided by Adam Smith, are maintaining law and order in the country, arranging money supply and strengthening national defense. The market system has different economic functions. However, government functions have increased over the long term (smith, A., 1779). The government is important in the economy as follows:

Throughout the book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith uses the term “commercial society” rather than more accustomed words like “capitalism.” Smith explains what he means by this term,

Despite these divergent paths which arise from differing views on the driving force of history, both systems aim to rescue the supreme interest of our individual humanity-for Marx, this interest lies in reaching absolute prosperity for the material man, and for Mill, it lies in the search for absolute truth for the idealistic man. With its emphasis on individuality and diversity, Mill's theory is in a sense more encompassing than Marx's. Mill's theory, however, is fundamentally flawed in comparison to Marx's because of its ignorance of property as a danger against human liberty. Marx sees in the industrial age the death of the property-less class. This death is brought by the industrial age's five qualities: division of labor, accumulation of capital, competition, financial crisis, and monopoly. In this age, machineries and the division of labor reduce the skillful artisans to the proletariats who merely work on one monotonous element of production. The capitalists who own the machines enlarge their capital by exploiting the proletariat's labor, leaving them only with enough to eat. Competition forces capitalists to lower prices, but this is good only until each factory produces more than demanded and a financial crisis emerges. The small