The task of political economy, Marx argued, was to understand all the presumptions within productive and social relations which made social life in a given form possible at a particular time.(Peterson,17). In some nations, as Hobbes states, the lives of the poor are "nasty,brutish and short", by contrast in other nations , the poor do better within same levels of wealth. The aim of political economy is to understand the processes that produce these differences. The two historical figures that analyzed capitalism were A.Smith and K.Marx. Their philosophy differ in the way each viewed the human conditions and the role of the individual. It could be argued that history has shown Smith to be right and Marx to be wrong but the fact is that each of these men understood capitalism on different terms although both had similar material aims.
The main difference between Marx's and Smith's thoughts is found in the values that each concerned. Smith suggested that the economic process can be forever unchangeable in its natural stage as individuals seek their own advantages.If people are left free they will try to improve the quality of their lives.This can be achieved in two ways : by individual effort or at someone else's expense. Most individuals will search for or make something that others will pay for rather than live at someone else's expense. On the other hand, Marx noticed a growing consciousness among the working class of society which he believed was formed by economic development and that would create a transformation of the whole social system: He asserts that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence , but their social existence that determines their existence.At a certain stage of development , the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production...Then begins the era of social revolution ." (Marx,140) Marx is talking about consciousness and the development of the society.He believes that the wealth produced by the industrial system develops the introspective thought in all people, more importantly among working class.
The individual comes to a self-realization through creative labor and develops a self -identity through relations with other members of the society . He considers the potential for intellectual growth as a way to take society to a new level of equality.(Everli...
... middle of paper ...
...laborers since all must use effort to create their industry,thus final profit for themselves.He believes that all men are capitalists in a free economic society. Smith suggests that those who possess wealth have an interest in increasing it and such increase could never be motivated by giving society free exercise of all individual interests. He states " The sum of individual private fortunes makes up the wealth of the nation; there is no wealthy person who does not strive to become richer; let him do as he pleases; he will enrich the nation by enriching himself" (Sismondi,53) Each of these philosophers had valid points to make but they are focused on different targets. They in fact agree that the production of wealth in society is good but they would not agree on the conditions of the workers. If Smith possibily ask who stop the workers leave their profession and to join another,Marx response would be the social conditioning. That is among the valid answer for the failure of the communism.People need to believe that if they had made right choices ,or worked hard enough ,they would have gone to the top of society .But in communist plan there was no top to reach to motivate people.
It’s important to understand that the path will incline in it’s calamity, especially for youth, but it’s crucial for the pursuit of knowledge. The intercontinental world we live in is complete with diversity, making it essential for people to engage in educating themselves about all the wonders of the world. While taking into account that the pursuit of knowledge is a progressive road. Knowledge will then promote one into self-awareness, a chance for one to learn about themselves. During the pursuit of self-awareness, one learns to identify their strengths and weakness. This is a susceptible region, where youth must remember not to become indistinguishable with everyone else. Nevertheless, it allows for the pursuit of authenticity, the construction of one’s unique self. Then comes the horizon, the light behind the
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 unstable. It requires expanding markets and will end up creating a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, with more and more people becoming poor. Because of this instability, he thought that it would eventually collapse.
Marx speaks of a life to be free from working for someone who receives far more from a group of laborer’s who are part of a lower class party. However, there is more to it. What Marx promotes is a take over of all industrial factories, or businesses. A literal revolution of the lower class, so that instead of the business owners reaping all the benefits by the “proletariat” doing all laboring earning little, they need to gain total control of businesses of production and share amongst themselves equally everything. Sounds good to the ear that there could be no more struggles for the little people who are doing all the work, making someone else rich, but Marx...
Each person in a communist government doesn’t have savings. All of their money comes from a community pool and goes toward the society as a whole. Where as in a capitalist government, most responsible adults know where their money is at all times. Marx believed that the working class was better off in a communist government system. “In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they are always and everywhere represent the interest of the movement as a whole” (Marx). Marx, in this statement, is giving his opinion on why the communists are distinguished from the other working class parties. Though not all citizens are responsible for their money and their savings, all capitalist citizens are allowed to make their own money, and do with it as they please. Those who work hard and save their money wisely, succeed. Yet those who are lazy and refuse to work, do not succeed. Steven G. Marks, wrote a review and analysis of Johnathan Sperber’s book, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth Century Life. In this review, Marks compares and contrasts the differences and distinctions that are made by Sperber. He does this by comparing Marx and Sperber and giving descriptions and biographies of both. “Marx absorbed his permanently gloomy assessment of the capitalist economy from his readings of Adam Smith and
Marx believed that society was beginning to break away from nature as a source of economical support. In the past, humans had relied heavily on agriculture to support themselves but with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, new technology began to replace old farming techniques and created new factory jobs in cities. Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor.[1] He commented that, “ Even the objects of the simplest “ sensuous certainty” are only given him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse.”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process.”[3]
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.
Marx expressed many views about the over empowerment of the bourgeoisies in The Communists Manifesto. Marx believed that the working class was not getting paid what they deserved for the quality of work that they were producing. Marx thought that the all workers should be paid the same rather than by social position. For instance, Marx thought that a mineworker should be paid as much as a doctor. Marx states, ?The average price of w...
In Marx’s opinion, the cause of poverty has always been due to the struggle between social classes, with one class keeping its power by suppressing the other classes. He claims the opposing forces of the Industrial Age are the bourgeois and the proletarians. Marx describes the bourgeois as a middle class drunk on power. The bourgeois are the controllers of industrialization, the owners of the factories that abuse their workers and strip all human dignity away from them for pennies. Industry, Marx says, has made the proletariat working class only a tool for increasing the wealth of the bourgeoisie. Because the aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase their trade and wealth, it is necessary to exploit the worker to maximize profit. This, according to Marx, is why the labor of the proletariat continued to steadily increase while the wages of the proletariat continued to steadily decrease.
In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
When Karl Marx first penned his shaping works on communism, he assumed that the relationship between workers and capital would always be opposing. While most rejected his overall theories, they did not argue with the basic idea that the interests of workers would always be at odds with those of owners. This is one of Marx's only theories that has proven to be true. As a consequence, over the years, that thought has guided the marketplace in terms of deciding wages, working conditions and other worker centered benefits.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
The political philosopher believed that communism could only thrive in a society distressed by “the political and economic circumstances created by a fully developed capitalism”. With industry and capitalism growing, a working class develops and begins to be exploited. According to Marx, the exploiting class essentially is at fault for their demise, and the exploited class eventually comes to power through the failure of capitalism.... ... middle of paper ...
Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep understanding of the system to predict its pattern and protect ourselves from its negative sides.
Karl Marx emphasized a lot on the importance of socialism in society. In his theory, socialism was the only way to end the huge in socio-economic classes. He condemned the emergence of capitalism and the growth of industries that made disunited employers and employees as captured in his theory of labour. In his view, under capitalist production, a great number of people, more often than not, are confiscated from their rewards after so much hard work, and have utterly no control over the environment in which they work under. Jobs no longer reflect human imagination, but rather an insignificant method of generating more profits to enrich modest elite. Marx 's fixation on class reflects even today 's post-modern, socially dynamic world. Marx ideas
He is known worldwide for his numerous theories and ideas in regards to society, economics and politics. His outlook on these subjects is known as Marxism. Marxism focuses on the imbalance and struggle between classes and society. Marx’s theories stem from the concept of materialism based society and the implications thereof. These concepts leads to the Marxist theory of the failure of capitalism. Marx had a number of specific reasons for the downfall of capitalism yet capitalism remains very real and successful. Marxism covers a wide range of topics and theories, but an in depth analysis of his criticism to capitalism and how it is not relevant to modern day will be explored.