Polanyi's Division Of Labor

The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.

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.

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

On the other hand, Smith believes that at the state of nature, man actually tends towards harmonious relationships of bartering and are willing to work together instead of apart. He utilizes individual power to give him leverage in transactions. His creation of social order is not to control this tendency, but rather to create a system in which it can flourish, which he calls the division of labor. In this, each man finds his place in the social order, produces something in particular, and a lot of the transaction costs from bartering are worked past. Unlike Hobbes, he believes that social order simply adds to the ability of man’s power towards transaction.

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

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

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."

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

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

“It is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of'; (Classic Readings in Economics, pg 7). “It is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labour'; (Classic Readings in Economics, pg 7). When Smith speaks of the division of labour he refers to the specialization of workers into certain trades. This happens because an individual discovers talents that he possesses and may be advantageous for him to further develop in order to increase his wealth. People perhaps imagine that goods will make them happier and seek them for that reason, but they are deluded. Adam Smith for one thinks the delusion is a good thing because without it people would not work. This desire to acquire “acts as a driving power to guide men to whatever work society is willing to pay for'; (The Worldly Philosophers, pg 46). So as you see, Adam Smith felt that “the selfish motives of men are transmuted by interaction to yield the most unexpected of results: social harmony'; (The Worldly Philosophers, 47). You may ask, “What kind of cold-hearted man would promote selfishness as the only way to think and act?'; This leads to my next hypothesis.

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.