Essay on Comparing Adam Smith and Karl Marx

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.

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

Way back in 1776 the English economist Adam Smith asserted that a free market economy would best promote economic growth and raise living standards (Schiller, p.3). As he saw it, the pursuit of profits would induce capitalists to improve products, reduce prices, and advance technology also known as market capitalism (Schiller, p.3-4). He promoted the idea of laissez-faire meaning no government involvement (Schiller, p.4). On the other hand, Karl Marx, a German philosopher, had a different view of a market capitalism. Marx predicated that the capitalist system of private ownership would eventually self-destruct (Schiller, p.4). The capitalists who owned the land, the factories, and the machinery would continue exploiting working class until it rose up and overthrew the social order (Schiller, p.4). He believed that long-term prosperity

which allows for the ownership of the means of production. Under capitalism, if you purchase a business and pay people to work there, you are entitled to all of the profits earned. Marx views this as an immoral and an

The Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) had brought about significant changes in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transportation and technology and subsequently established an era of unprecedented economic growth in capitalist economies. It was within this era that Karl Marx had observed the deprivation and inequality experienced by men of the proletariat, the working class, who had laboured excessively for hours under inhumane conditions to earn a minimum wage while the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, reaped the benefits. For Marx it was this fundamental inequality within the social and economic hierarchy that had enabled capitalist societies to function. While Marx’s theories, in many instances have been falsified and predictions

Karl Marx on the other hand, has a wildly different opinion on property. In his most famous piece, The Communist Manisfesto, Marx’s opinion is set up in one line; "… the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx in Cahn 885). Marx firmly believed that ownership of private property was a way in which the social classes became more divided, and in turn, a way to oppress the poor. His opinion largely stems from the time period in which he lived (1818-1883), where factory owners infamously underpaid employees for dangerous work in treacherous conditions. However, Marx idea of private property was a bit different from Locke and did not mean things like land ownership or personal items, but the relation of individuals used for the means of production in a privately owned enterprise. Marx points out however, that in this state, unlike the ideas and time of Locke (1632-1704), the laborers do not benefit or acquire any property from their labor. In fact, the capital they are producing is the “kind of property that exploits wage labor” (Marx in Cahn 886) and serves to oppress them and further the division of classes. Therefore, Marx aimed to take this “private property” and give it to the Proletariats in order to change its status from the elite ownership of the Bourgeoisie, to the

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.

In my opinion, Marx is correct in saying that “capitalism is inherently unjust and self-destructive.” Under this system, a small percentage of a country owns most, if not all, means of production and trade. In the United States, capitalism is what creates the divide between the 1% and the other 99%. Marx suggests that capitalism is self-destructive for three reasons. First, capitalism “separates the proletariat from their finished product” which in turn removes a sense of pride that an individual would generally take in their own work. Second, capitalism reduces humans “to the level of plants and animals” because capitalism is based on greed which encourages workers to produce quantity over quality and cease innovations. Third, capitalism “degrades

Karl Marx, who founded communism along with Friedricsh Engels, was against the economic system of capitalism. Marx believed that capitalism was radically unstable with tendencies toward self-destruction. He saw that capitalism would eventually deteriorate due to internal contradictions and be followed by socialism. In his view of capitalism, the dynamic of capital would eventually bankrupt the working class and create social conditions for a revolution. Capitalism would plunge the middle classes into a precarious existence of the hard-pressed workers of his time. Marx viewed capitalism as a contradiction-laden system characterized by recurring crises that have a tendency towards increasing severity. Marx attempted to turn the labor theory of

Although Adam Smith and Karl Marx’s theories are considered the backbone of political theory, their argument on social order is less of a reality in today’s society. Smith argues that the division of labor is man’s best means of production and that each individual should master their specific area of production. Marx on the other hand, argues that revolution is the ultimate end of capitalism, which there is a class struggle between the bourgeois and the proletarians. With the rise of globalization due to the advancement of technology, both Smith and Marx’s arguments have become less relevant.

There is perhaps not a more famous ongoing dialectic argument in the field of political economy than the one between Adam Smith and Karl Marx in regards to capitalism. The two thinkers, although coming to radically different conclusions about the outcomes of the capitalist system for all parties involved, agree on a surprising number of ideas such as labor being the source of commodities’ value, as well as the fact that the division of labor increases productivity. However, their different conceptions of what determines the price of a commodity, the driving force behind and the effects of the division of labor, and the purpose of the capitalist system have widespread implications that cause their holistic arguments to diverge considerably.

We didn't quite avoid the environmental destruction but that was because governments and markets failed to understand the problem alike. We also saw that when those followers of Adam Smith who believe that markets self-organize towards stability got the upper hand politically, and started to remove the constraints, markets actually became more volatile and unstable, and social destruction, poverty, ill-health, crime and resentment increased. And environmental destruction accelerated. So today, I think we should see Marx as the champion of the view that capitalist market dynamics can lead to unplanned malign outcomes. My general feeling is that Smith would have agreed with Marx about most things. Although we tend to remember him as an economist, Smith was primarily a moral philosopher.