Ap European History Frq: Karl Marx vs. Adam Smith

disco biscuit Smiths enormous authority resides, in the end, in the same property that we discover in Marx non in any political orientation, but in an effort to see the bottom of things. In some(prenominal) cases their greatness rests on an unflinching confrontation with the human figure as they could best make out. Assess the above quote. What ideas did twain hands draw upon in order to formulate their ideas? What were their conclusions? Why were their conclusions so divergent? To what extent were they correct? Adam Smith and Karl Marx were considered to be amongst the best or if not the best scotch theorists the world has ever seen.Despite seeming to be polar opposites, both(prenominal) Smith and Marx be fundamentally similar. cardinal argon looking to see what makes the entire system get going, and what the basis of economy truly is. They both have their flaws, yet they were both correct. Their idea was to formulate something that would run the basis of economy. Bo th have divergent 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 boor of the sense therefore he mustve drawn some foresight 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 age his senior. Some also argued that Smith came up with the idea to write wealthiness 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 passage of arms among two opposing forces would produce a synthesis which was generally much delightful to both sides. Hegel maxim this phenomenon in nature and everywhere, a nd it was the basis of class conflict in Marxs writings. Conflict would ultimately lead to synthesis, in which mankind would progress. In a way Marx was also inspired by Smith himself, and perhaps also by early socialists such as Saint-Simon. Not tho were their ideologies differ, each drew different conclusions from their theorems too.In his book Wealth of Nations Smith proposed that a nations wealth should be judged by its gold and silver medal supply but by the total of its production and commerce (today more commonly known as GDP). He also explored the idea of voice of labor, through which specialization would lead to an increase in quality for construct 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 wealth evenly amongst the populace and eliminate the distinctions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat altogether.He reason ed that workers would be exploited by capitalists (or bourgeoisie), for the capitalist system basically means that the blue 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. iodine of his theories, the labor theory of value, claims that the value of a good or wait on is directly connected to the amount of labor required for its production. So, in resultant the two theories and conclusion were very different. The very difference in ideology is what set the two apart. plot of land 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 freedom from oppression. Karl Marx saw class struggle, while Adam Smith saw special interests that were much at odds with the general public interest. Also, Smith did not put in the spotlight on the land holdings or the riches of the aristocracy give care Marx did.They also differed on the method of production of goods and services and distribution of resources. While Adam Smiths envisioned ideal society would not distribute resources equitably or eliminate gaping wealth levels between the different classes in a society, Marxs ideal economy would produce, agree to the directives from a central authority, and distribute resources according to the needs of the public. However, despite 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 concord that the workers (proletariats) were crucial for the production of goods. Both of them also recognized that there is a conflict, or at least a wide division, between the work and upper class. Adam Smith also realized that there are basic social clas ses land-owners, wage earners, and capitalists. Marx, to a certain extent, also accepted the condition where there are different classes, albeit trying to change the situation. Overall, both of them proposed ideas to change the economy to fit their liking, despite both economists going in a completely different direction altogether.