The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> For Matay... "Society's Debt to Marx"

For Matay... "Society's Debt to Marx"
Posted by Jeff (Guest) jeff@attoz.com - Tuesday, April 6 2004, 12:08:32 (EDT)
from 69.14.120.175 - d14-69-175-120.try.wideopenwest.com Commercial - Windows XP - Netscape
Website:
Website title:

Society’s Debt to Marx












Jeffrey J. Atto
000002967
Section 03
Society’s Debt to Marx


Adam Smith and Karl Marx fundamentally disagreed on the division of labor and its effects, on the question of child labor, on the issue of government regulations, and on the role of the public school system. However, modern day capitalism is a mix of the Laissez-Faire capitalism proposed in Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the communist ideology of Marx’s Manifesto of the Communist Party. Since Adam Smith’s time, capitalist society has evolved for the better as a direct result of the ideas of Karl Marx.

Adam Smith sees the division of labor as a positive mechanism that betters society as a whole. The division of labor describes the process of breaking down a complex task into several more simple tasks. According to Smith, the division of labor results in the greatest improvement of productivity for the following reasons: workers become more dexterous, time is saved in the “passing from one species of work to another”, and machines are invented which enable one man to “do the work of many” (Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.269). Smith explains, “the most opulent nations…generally excel all their neighbors in agriculture as well as in manufactures; but they are commonly more distinguished by their superiority in the latter…” (Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.268) According to Smith, the more advanced nations are regarded as such because of their sophistication in producing manufactures (the term “manufactures” refers to that which is created utilizing the division of labor). As a result of the division of labor in Smith’s economic model, each worker has a specialty and trades his surplus of labor with others who are in the same situation. He believes that this increase in production benefits even the lowest classes of society. He writes, “…in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions…that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people” (Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.270). Furthermore, he adds that “Every workman has a great quantity of his own work to dispose of beyond what he himself has occasion for; and every other workman being exactly in the same situation, he is enabled to exchange a great quantity of his own goods… for the price of a great quantity of theirs” (Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.271). For Smith, the division of labor is at the heart of the capitalist system, and he believes that it can affect society as a whole from the perception of how advanced a nation is to the affluence of its lowest classes.

Karl Marx, on the other hand, sees the division of labor not as a positive influence on society, but rather as a mechanism that the bourgeoisie utilize to maintain their existence. He writes, “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and with them the whole relations of society” (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.133). Marx would agree with Smith that the division of labor increases productivity, but at what cost? Although productivity increases, it spins out of control. Marx likens the modern bourgeois society to a sorcerer that “conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange” and who is “no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells” (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.134). To describe this scenario, Marx uses the term “the epidemic of overproduction”. He believes that the division of labor increases productivity excessively and this overproduction is a fundamental flaw in capitalism because it results in chaos. When society reaches this point, it “suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism…industry and commerce seem to be destroyed” (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.134). This results in lower prices, massive layoffs, a loss in monetary value, and the overall ruin of society. The division of labor also causes the work of the proletariat classes to become boring and it loses all character. The worker becomes “an appendage of the machine” and only does simple, monotonous work (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.135). This is a direct contrast to Smith, who believes that the division of labor makes the worker more skilled because he concentrates all of his efforts on one task and finds ways to make that task more efficient. Marx explains that the amount of wages paid to the simple worker is lowered to just barely enough for him to survive, and that as the division of labor increases, his pay decreases and the workload increases. He likens the masses of proletariat laborers to “privates of the industrial army” who are crowded into a factory and “organized like soldiers”. The overall result of the division of labor is the enslavement of the proletariat class, by “the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself” (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.135). The division of labor is also used to marginalize the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and others by increased competition from capitalists who utilize new methods of production and whose businesses are much larger. Marx adds that as modern industry develops, it begins to use women and children as instruments of labor, and they are added to the slave laborer class (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.135). While Smith used the division of labor as a basis for his economic model and extolled its virtues, Marx used the division of labor and its effects to express his opposition to many of Smith’s views. The division of labor is present in modern day society in some forms (assembly line factories, for example), and large corporations do indeed threaten smaller businesses just as Marx predicted. Nevertheless, the presence of skilled laborers (that do not participate in the division of labor), unions, and consumers who intentionally buy from non-corporate entities are a small demonstration of Marxist influence in the modern economy.

Another point of contention between Adam Smith and Karl Marx is the role of child labor in economic theory. In comparing North America to England, Smith explains that “Labour is there [in North America] so well rewarded that a numerous family of children, instead of being a burthen is a source of opulence and prosperity to the parents. The labour of each child, before it can leave their house, is computed to be worth a hundred pounds clear gain to them.” He goes on to explain that a widow with several children in Europe would likely starve, but that in North America such women are courted as rich women would be (Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.302). Contrast this pro-child labor stance with Marx’s sentiment that in the most advanced countries which will adopt the Communist doctrine, child labor will be abolished “in its present form” (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.143). Child Labor laws were adopted in America with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 . The very concept of government regulation or prohibition of child labor is entirely Marxist, and this is an improvement to Smith’s idea of capitalism because of the commonly held belief that child labor is unethical.

The next disparity between Marx and Smith is the issue of government regulation of business. Smith explains that freedom of trade without government intervention is the best course of action, and that the forces of supply and demand will provide for what is needed: “We trust with perfect security that the freedom of trade, without any attention of government, will always supply us with … [whatever] we have occasion for, and we may trust with equal security that it will always supply us with … which we can afford to purchase or to employ, either in circulating our commodities, or in other uses (Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.318). This idea of self-regulation is reoccurring in Smith, and is underscored with the following: “It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy the private people and restrain their expense…Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs” (Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book II, Ch. III). Smith is entirely against tariffs because he believes that they disrupt the invisible hand that affects trade (among other things) and because such regulations often result in monopolies and “in almost all cases” result in useless and/or hurtful regulations (Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.330). In direct contrast, Marx believes that in a true communist state the government would control and regulate the means of communication and transport, and would control all of industry and agriculture (Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p.143). In modern “capitalist” society (specifically in America), the government regulates business with tariffs and regulations, and also controls certain aspects of the means of transport in this country through agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration. This is another example of the Marxist influence on capitalist society.

The idea of having a public school system that would provide free education for all children is another example of the Marxist influence on modern capitalist society. Smith believed that “Those parts of education… for the teaching of which there are no public institutions, are generally the best taught.” He further explained that if the public pays for the majority of a teacher’s salary, the teacher soon neglects his duties (Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Ch I.). Smith believed that private education was far more effective than public education, and that public money used to fund teachers had a corrupting influence on them, which caused them to become lazy. Alternatively, Marx explains that one of the ten measures to be executed in a communist society is “Free education for all children in public schools” which exists in most capitalist societies today. It is my opinion that having free public education available to children is a positive influence and/or improvement from a society that does not have free public education.

If modern “western” society were to be classified using the criteria put forth by Smith and Marx, it would be neither capitalist nor communist. Smith would argue that all of the Marxist aspects of modern society (public schools, regulations, government control of transportation, child labor laws, etc.) exclude America and other “capitalist” societies from being true forms of capitalism. Similarly, Marx would look at America, or even the People’s Republic of China and see a clear bourgeois class (in America, corporate billionaires; in China, the government and rich upper class), as well as class distinctions, private ownership of land and business, etc. which prevent these countries from being Communist as he defined the term. What remains in most countries is a peculiar combination of capitalist and communist ideas (a distorted form of “Socialism”?) that is commonly referred to as “capitalism” or “communism”, neither of which is true to the doctrines laid out by their creators, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.


Works Cited

Author, Unknown. Development of the American Experience. (Volume I) Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000.

Author, Unknown. Development of the American Experience. (Volume II) Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000.

Romero, Oscar. “Consumers on Strike Against the War.” http://stopspendingstopwar.org/
Published Aug 14, 2002. Accessed Nov 30, 2002.

Zwick, Jim. "The Campaign to End Child Labor: Introduction."
http://www.boondocksnet.com/labor/cl_intro.html In Jim Zwick, ed., The Campaign to End Child Labor. http://www.boondocksnet.com/labor/ (Nov. 30, 2002)



---------------------


The full topic:



Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,video/x-mng,image/png,image/jpeg,image/g...
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1, utf-8;q=0.66, *;q=0.66
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate, compress;q=0.9
Accept-language: en-us, en;q=0.50
Connection: keep-alive
Content-length: 13120
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Keep-alive: 300
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf/rkvsf_core.php?.BYiu.
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9