Communistic Views: Karl Marx Vs. Adam Smith

Marx is often connected with critiques on capitalistic societies. In a capitalistic society such as America, individuals are primarily driven by the accumulation of profit. Marx believed that social inequalities in capitalist societies were molded by competition over resources and various goals. He theorized that wealth, power, and various advantages would eventually become disproportionately distributed among segments of the population due to this competition. Descendants of Marxism commonly focus on the ways in which this privileged segment of the United States strives to perpetuate their status and wealth.

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 believes that a capitalistic society separates the rich from the poor. corporations that holds the money hold the power to dictate whether certain fucntions of society.

He begins trying to use a sort of a reverse psychology, by saying the communists do not write their principles specifically for the proletarians. Rather, just by chance, the communist vision is perfect for the proletarians to use. He said the problem of all other societies before this time have been a battle between the oppressors versus the oppressed. The basis of these battles has been property. So Communism looks to get rid of different classes in society. Therefore getting rid of different property levels or class levels. Marx says it best by “In sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” He says with no private property there will be no reason to fight or feud.

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.

The simplistic perception of capitalist society varies greatly among Smith and Marx. Smith believed that capitalism is a mechanism designed to curb man's selfishness and put it to work for the general good of all (Baumol, 1976). Conversely, Marx believed that capitalism is based on neither good nor evil, but a product of historical circumstances or experience (Baumol, 1976). Marx also believed that the law of motion in capitalism frustrates, rather than facilitates, the individual ends (wealth). Marx believed that wealth divides capitalists by class, and that workers must develop in a universal class (Levine, 1998). Marx also disagreed with Smith in believing that production must cease to be a labor process if it

Adam Smith and Karl Marx both came from very different worlds, however they saw the world in similar ways. Both had thoughts derived from different views. Smith had a very capitalistic view on things, while Marx was socialist in many ways. They expressed their thoughts in ways that were surprisingly similar while other ideas were dissimilar. Ultimately socialism and capitalism can go hand in hand. One main idea that both works addressed was the productivity of work and the ability to accumulate property, stock and capital. They both wanted a wealthy nation but Marx believed that redistribution of wealth was the way to go. Smith believed in a free economic system that gave capitalists rights to accumulate their wealth.

Marx thought of capitalism in a pessimistic way, he saw the relationship between the employee and employer in a capitalistic society as toxic. To Marx, in a capitalistic society the employee would always be at a constant struggle for power be never endlessly repressed by the bourgeoisie. The employer would pay employees only what they needed to survive making it impossible to move up in class or society. He also recognized that in capitalism everything becomes corporatized. Things like marriage go from a sacred bond between two individuals that once never included money or the government, to something that is regulated by the national government and must be done through the federal court and include ties between the individual's financial status. Small businesses would also become corporatized, a local family doctor has now become part of a larger practice that brings in complex forms of payment such as insurance instead of simply paying a small family doctor directly. He also goes into the downfall of capitalism. The way capitalism works is through a series of economic highs and lows, each high is marked by prosperous times, high employment rate, and overall happiness. But the lows are marked by deterioration of the national economy, low employment rates, and struggle for all classes. To Marx’s these highs and lows are what's killing capitalism with each low being worse than the last until the people revolt and create a new form of government. The next would be socialism and once this fell like capitalism, the new governing system would be communism. Communism is an ideal system where people are never struggling for money and are paid based on their needs rather than their particular job. Through this system a

Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) was a revolutionary German economic theorist and communist with many publications on sociology, economics and politics. Many of his writings can be used and applied into the media. Marx stated that in prehistoric times, people had no concept of private ownership, and everything was shared freely. There was no government to rule over everyone, but small tribes of people who each had their own leaders. This was known as primitive communism. As time went by, people became greedy and craved wealth. Private ownership of land led to the class system developing, with the upper class owning the land that the lower classes lived on and worked off. This became the feudal system, which was headed by a king. This system suited the upper class however it also meant that the lower class was always kept at the bottom, with no way of moving up from their positions. Industrialisation in the 1700’s meant that power in society fell into the hands of the wealthy, as they owned the land and had the money to build factories,

Smith and Marx agree upon the importance of capitalism as unleashing productive powers. Capitalism is born out of the division of labour... that is, it is made possible by dividing jobs up into simple tasks as a way of increasing efficiency. By increasing efficiency, then everyone can produce more than they personally need. The extra produced can go towards the accumulation of capital, (machines, more land, more tools, etc) which will allow for even more increased efficiency and production. Both thought that this increased production was great. But Marx said that capitalism was only one stage... that every country must go through capitalism, to get that increased production, but that capitalism is

While she centralized her perspective at the University of British Columbia, it was at the same time she rediscovered the ideology of Karl Marx. She said that while attending the London School of Economics she had learned the teachings of his work with a distorted interpretation. Smith was influenced by Marx’s writings due to the notion of his ideology about politics and the ideas and images of the ruling class and how they become the dominant ones in our culture because the people ruling also own the productive apparatus of society.

As far back as man has been on earth, he has been driven towards building a community among his peers. Whether that is a community of hunters and gatherers who share whatever the day has brought to them within their tribe, or a larger community which within its structure lie the inner dwellings of division of labor and societal classes. Adam Smith (18th Century), John Stuart Mill (19th Century), and Karl Marx (19th Century) are of the same cloth, but in modern terms their community is referenced as a government, and they each have their own distinct opinions on the 'drive' instilled within human nature that shape their personal economic theories. I will be dissecting the views of each of these economists, in regards to the role of

This view reversed, is also visible with lower class people and low cultural capital. The rising issue outlined in this video and capitalism as a whole, is that people in a society are grouped in a certain hierarchical manner according to their class, status and power. Alternatively, Marx, another renown sociologist defined the capitalist system primarily on modes of production, separating the society with proletariats (workers who perform a certain task to obtain an orderly income) and capitalists (industries or companies who earn money through profit, rent and interest). Marx also believed that inheritance down the generations is a head start for the newer generations to build a higher financial capital as capitalists would have built up a larger inheritance to pass down compared to proletariats (Van Krieken et al. pp.212, 213). Both Marx and aspects of Bourdieu’s theories of capitalism indicate that wealth and privilege are primarily contributed to define a group or individuals hierarchical standing within their

Marx argued that due to capitalism’s competitive nature, it would eventually die out and be replaced with a new form of government, communism. It is to Marx’s beliefs that change cannot simply occur through reforms or changes in government, rather a revolution in which the proletariat overthrow the bourgeois is necessary. Marx promoted the revolution, moving history towards its natural conclusion, through his ten proposals for a communist society. Among them include: a heavy progressive income tax, an exclusive monopoly of the banks under the state, transferring ownership of the modes of production to the state, a more equal distribution of the population over the country, and most importantly, the abolition of private property. Marx stated,” the theory of communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.” Marx acknowledged that this notion was radical and asserted that it is due in part to the liberal misconception that landowning is the fundamentals

Adam Smith is considered as one of the most influential economists in the 18th century. Although his theories have been criticized by several socialist economists, however, his idea of capitalism still has great impact to the rest of the economists during classical, neo classical periods and the structure of today’s economy. Even the former Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher had praised on Smith’s contribution on today’s capitalism market. She commented “Adam Smith, in fact, heralded the end of the strait-jacket of feudalism and released all the innate energy of private initiative and enterprise which enable wealth to be created on a scale never before contemplated” (Copley and Sutherland 1995, 2). Smith is also being recognized