Economic Policies: Adam Smith Vs. Karl Marx

I will begin by outlining Marx’s general argument for the way economical life influences our thinking.

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.

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

Adam Smith and Karl Marx are both famous for their philosophies on economics, more specifically the division of labor. For each of them the division of labor is rather similar in its definition, but the outcome of the division of labor differs drastically from Smith to Marx. For Smith the division of labor leads to mass production and allows large amounts of people to get things that were once available only to the rich. Smith believes that small specialized tasks leads to the invention of new technologies, and that individuals working selfishly to better themselves in the capitalistic world is beneficial to everyone. For Marx the division of labor is more about the relationship between the employee and the employer. He believes that

In this document, Adam Smith states that people will "[direct] the industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value" and that "he intends only his own gain," (Doc A). Smith believes that people will act on self-gain to benefit themselves. However, this only leads to exploitations of this system when Bourgeoisie abuse the Proletariat's working force. Also, Smith believes that "every individual it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him," (Doc A). Despite this, when there was not much government intervention, the Bourgeoisie betrayed us and put us in critically hostile working conditions.

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

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

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

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

- Control and regulate the various economic conditions such as inflation through the management and

This view is manifestly similar to Marx’s, in that both believe under socialist and communal based economic systems, man is entitled to all the fruits of their capabilities; or to put it more succinctly; “from each according to his ability” (Marx, ---, p.). There is obvious disparity between Smith and Kropotkin on property. Smith’s favoring of laisse-fare capitalism is exactly what Kropotkin is rejecting and criticizing. Kropotkin doesn’t outright reject all group enterprises however, showing that both him and Smith encourage development and hope for societal benefit with their ideologies. The difference lies in Kropotkin advocating for equality, and rejection of any hierarchical management or worker exploitation, while Smith accepts it as necessity. Both individuals hold persuasive ideas, however Kropotkin presents a more logically sound argument by nature of his idea behind a benefitted society being one of no exploitation; whereas Smith’s is somewhat contradictory as he accepts inequality as a trade-off of advancement and benefitting society, this is somewhat counterintuitive to suggest society is “better” when a whole class is oppressed and

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.

The philosophy of Karl Marx begins with the belief that humans are inherently cooperative with common characteristics and shared ends. To human beings, life is considered an object and therefore, humans make their “life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” (Tucker 76). In other words, humans are able to think, imagine, and “produce even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (p. 76). It exemplifies that idea that humans not only have the capability to create things for survival but express themselves in what they produce, within the standards of the human race or universally. When capitalist wage-labor enters the picture, it forces these shared ends and the freedom of expression in human production to cease, causing a rise of competitiveness among

The three business analysts profiled in this article — Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes — contributed generously to the advancement of financial aspects as a science. By and by, contemplations of generation, dissemination, decision, shortage, and exchange utilizes far originate before these men, to the soonest days of mankind. Ages before there was financial idea, there was monetary conduct.