Karl Marx And Karl Polanyi

Karl Marx had different views about the division of labor such as how it increases productivity. The way how it

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

During the Industrial Revolution, a man named Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, in which entails the idea that job specialization makes society great. Approximately 70 years later, a man named Karl Marx writes the Communist Manifesto, which totally disagrees with Smith’s thinking and says that specialization is bad for society.  The strengths and weaknesses of Smith’s argument are to be followed by Marx’s ideas that contain some  weaknesses but is overall the best argument. Marx believes that all people are born equal, but due to resources and opportunities scarcely available, few people can succeed by which they must exploit the rest of the world.

Karl Marx and Max Weber were influential sociologists that paved the way for modern sociological school of thought. Both, Karl Marx and Max Weber contributed a lot to the study and foundation of sociology. Without their contributions sociology would not be as prominent as it is today. From the contribution of how sociology should be studied, to how they applied their theories to everyday life has influenced many sociologists. Predominantly, both of these theorists’ discussed the effects of capitalism, how it has developed, shaped and changed society into what it is today. Specifically, Karl Marx’s contribution of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class and Max Weber’s social stratification has helped individuals to understand how modern day society has transformed into what it is today. Particularly, this paper will lie out Weber’s theory of social stratification and Marx’s theory of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class; additionally this essay will also compare and contrast the ideas of these two influential sociologists. Finally this essay will criticize both of these sociologists’ theories and display that Marx and Weber do not explain how modern day society and classes have been formed.

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.

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

The first book, “Of the causes of improvement…,” talks about the division of labor and the wage of labors. According to Smith, there are three advantage of division of labor. First, it increases the employees’ dexterity; second it decreases the amount of time it consumes to make the product; and third reason is that because of the many inventions of machine, each employee can perform the work of many. Smith thought division of labor is important because labors can be more efficient if they are specialized in specific work.

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."

is when the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a small part of a man’s want which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other’s men’s labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society (Smith, 2003, p. 37).

Though Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville differ, they both contributed greatly to revolutionary concepts of their era. To better understand the analyses between politics, social, and economic changes Marx and Tocqueville discuss, we must first understand the shift of their time and the need for sociological analysis. The 19th century was a time of change and adaptation for everyone and few scholars were capable and willing to understand the impacts these changes would have on society and its entities. Both industrial and democratic revolutions affected their times and created shifts in society. The industrialization affected many aspects of society. It created a structural change in the economy shifting from agrarian income to industrial and commercial income. Technology impacted labour force and production shifting to large-scale manufacturing creating new types of investments. These changes affected class structure, migration, and workers which in turn affected economy and a shift in politics.

When applied to economics, Adam Smith’s ideas of sympathy and morality actually drive his ideas of the division of labor and capitalism. Firstly, as Smith explains in Theory of Moral Sentiments, sympathy actually creates a longing and appreciation for wealth, as wealth is seen as an escape from suffering. He says that since humans want others to want to sympathize with them, they flaunt their wealth and hide their misery. This is because, due to the nature of sympathy, seeing

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.

Karl Marx believes that division of labour means a way in which workers of an organization were given a job at which they were good at or at which they had their specialty in. Max Weber viewed division of labour as an important element or characteristic of any bureaucratic organization that is functioning in the modern society. Emile Durkheim believed that division of labour was the outcome of a societal procedure that takes place within the structure of the society than the result of choices that have been made by individuals.