Ap European History Frq: Karl Marx vs. Adam Smith

Adam smiths enormous authority resides, in the end, in the same property that we discover in Marx not in any ideology, but in an effort to see the render of things. In both(prenominal) cases their greatness rests on an unflinching confrontation with the kind-hearted condition as they could stovepipe make out. Assess the above quote. What subjects did both men draw upon in order to hypothecate their ideas? What were their conclusions? Why were their conclusions so different? To what ex ten dollar billt were they correct? Adam smith and Karl Marx were considered to be amongst the best or if not the best economic theorists the world has ever seen.Despite probable to be polar opposites, both Smith and Marx argon fundamentally similar. both(prenominal) are looking to see what makes the entire system run, and what the basis of scrimping truly is. They both pay back their flaws, yet they were both correct. Their idea was to formulate any(prenominal)thing that would run the ba sis of economy. Both have different ideas, both have different agendas. Marx and Smith had different thoughts and drawing different conclusion on how things should be run, and yet to a certain extent both of them are correct. Both men drew their ideas upon very different sources.Adam Smith was a child of the Enlightenment on that pointfore he mustve drawn some Enlightenment ideas. In 1751 Adam Smith met Scottish philosopher David Hume, who was a major Enlightenment thinker. It is safe to assume that Smith learned many things from Hume, who was ten years his senior. Some overly argued that Smith came up with the idea to relieve Wealth of Nations on his own, with little or no influence of others. Marx, on the other hand, was greatly influenced by the ideas of others. Georg Hegels dialectics inspired Marx greatly.Generally, the idea was that conflict among two opposing forces would produce a synthesis which was generally much acceptable to both sides. Hegel saw this phenomenon i n nature and everywhere, and it was the basis of shape conflict in Marxs writings. Conflict would ultimately lead to synthesis, in which military personnel would progress. In a way Marx was also inspired by Smith himself, and possibly also by early socialists such as Saint-Simon. not only were their ideologies differ, each drew different conclusions from their theorems too.In his book Wealth of Nations Smith proposed that a nations riches should be judged by its money and silver supply but by the total of its production and barter (today more commonly known as GDP). He also explored the idea of division of labor, through which limitedization would lead to an increase in select for manufactured goods. Marx would argue that communism offered the best model both politically and economically with its collectivist ownership, production, and central planning, which are intended to distribute wealthiness equally amongst the populace and eliminate the distinctions among the bourge oisie and the proletariat altogether.He conclude that workers would be exploited by capitalists (or bourgeoisie), for the capitalist system basically intend that the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. Furthermore, the bourgeoisie is always in a better position to negotiate a low wage for the proletariats. One of his theories, the labor theory of value, claims that the value of a good or service is directly connected to the amount of labor required for its production. So, in effect the two theories and conclusion were very different. The very difference in ideology is what set the two apart.While Adam Smith contended that the most ideal economic system is capitalism, Marx believed that capitalism leads to greed and inequality. Karl Marx is more of a revolutionary Adam Smith was more to reforms rather than a full-scale revolution, as he valued order and stability more rather than independence from oppression. Karl Marx saw class struggle, while Adam Smith saw s pecial interests that were often at odds with the general public interest. Also, Smith did not put the spotlight on the land holdings or the riches of the nobleness like Marx did.They also differed on the method of production of goods and services and scattering of resources. While Adam Smiths envisioned ideal purchase order would not distribute resources equitably or eliminate gaping wealth levels between the different classes in a society, Marxs ideal economy would produce, according to the directives from a central authority, and distribute resources according to the needs of the public. However, disdain the disagreements, both Smith and Marx were correct to a certain extent. In a wider perspective, they both wanted a prosperous nation of wealth.They both also agreed that the workers (proletariats) were crucial for the production of goods. Both of them also recognized that in that location is a conflict, or at least a wide division, between the working and upper class. Adam S mith also realized that there are basic social classes land-owners, wage earners, and capitalists. Marx, to a certain extent, also accepted the condition where there are different classes, albeit trying to potpourri the situation. Overall, both of them proposed ideas to change the economy to fit their liking, despite both economists spillage in a completely different direction altogether.