Marx vs. Smith - War of the Economist

[Lardlad95]

To every capitalist Marx is a name identified with Dictators Poverty and good ideals gone horribly wrong

TO every Marxist (socialist, communist,etc.) Adam Smith represents greed, opression, poverty, inequality.

These two have had the most profound effects on the modern world to date.

Both were exceptionally bright men except with key differences

Smith believed in no goverment control

Marx believed that the people should share


Both of their ideas were revollutionary for their times.

However their works diverge and we come to see that both has what the other lacks.

Marx has fame, no matter what your politics every person on earth knows who Marx is. However no one following his system has suceeded

Smith's system reesulted in the richest country in existence...but unless you are smart or an economist you wont know who smith is.

However we notice another aspect.

Marx is read world wide...but only The communist Manifesto.

His other work, Das Kapital is possibly the dullest book on earth and though they claim to few of his followers have read it and fully understood it.

It's dense, dull, and doesn't apply to the outline of much of the world today. Economists have long since stopped claiming it as useful to their feild.


Smith on the other hand wrote a less dull book (while still dull) however it is still taught to economists all over the earth.

Does anyone have anythoughts on why each one has something the other needs?

[redstar2000]

Das Kapital is not really the "dullest" book ever written...might make the top 100 though. It's a very "dense" book and such works make for tough reading. Value, Price & Profit and Wage Labour & Capital will give you the stripped-down version and are much more accessible.

Today, both Marx and Smith are quite "out of fashion", for different reasons. Marx's conclusions are clearly "unacceptable" to the ruling class and a Marxist economist who applied for a grant to study quantitative models of surplus value would be laughed out of the offices of every foundation in the world.

Smith is just considered old-fashioned, "qualitative".
Quantitative modeling is the "hot topic" among bourgeois economists these days...although their "scientific" pretensions crash and burn with every "prediction" they try to make. The funniest example happened a few years ago. Two guys put together a computer model of stock market performance that looked so convincing they got a "Nobel"* prize for it. Whereupon a bunch of banker-types rushed in to set up a fund for these guys to "manage"--they "managed" to LOSE about one billion dollars!!

What many people don't know, by the way, is that Marx relied quite heavily on the capitalist economists of his time, particularly Ricardo. I suspect, if one had the patience, one could locate a critique of Smith somewhere in the 3 massive volumes of Das Kapital. (I'll confess: I've read some excerpts of the book, but I haven't read the whole thing and I'm very sceptical of those who've claimed to.)

-----
*There's really no such thing as a "Nobel Prize" in economics. What happened was that the Royal Bank of Sweden established "A Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel for Economics". Alfred Nobel himself established his prizes for "discoveries that benefit humanity" and, perhaps wisely, chose NOT to include economics as one of his catagories.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:12 pm on Dec. 7, 2002
Das Kapital is not really the "dullest" book ever written...might make the top 100 though. It's a very "dense" book and such works make for tough reading. Value, Price & Profit and Wage Labour & Capital will give you the stripped-down version and are much more accessible.

Today, both Marx and Smith are quite "out of fashion", for different reasons. Marx's conclusions are clearly "unacceptable" to the ruling class and a Marxist economist who applied for a grant to study quantitative models of surplus value would be laughed out of the offices of every foundation in the world.

Smith is just considered old-fashioned, "qualitative".
Quantitative modeling is the "hot topic" among bourgeois economists these days...although their "scientific" pretensions crash and burn with every "prediction" they try to make. The funniest example happened a few years ago. Two guys put together a computer model of stock market performance that looked so convincing they got a "Nobel"* prize for it. Whereupon a bunch of banker-types rushed in to set up a fund for these guys to "manage"--they "managed" to LOSE about one billion dollars!!

What many people don't know, by the way, is that Marx relied quite heavily on the capitalist economists of his time, particularly Ricardo. I suspect, if one had the patience, one could locate a critique of Smith somewhere in the 3 massive volumes of Das Kapital. (I'll confess: I've read some excerpts of the book, but I haven't read the whole thing and I'm very sceptical of those who've claimed to.)

-----
*There's really no such thing as a "Nobel Prize" in economics. What happened was that the Royal Bank of Sweden established "A Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel for Economics". Alfred Nobel himself established his prizes for "discoveries that benefit humanity" and, perhaps wisely, chose NOT to include economics as one of his catagories.

nice analysis and I plan to make an attempt to read capital one day....though I doubt I will make it through.

Although Smith is still a much respected economist. Marx however is just a figurehead.

And modern day Cappie economists don't do a damn thing

[Geddan]

I've read the Manifesto and I plan to make through the Capital...and some of Lenins and Maos books...but my library haven't got them! ARGHH!!

[redstar2000]

Geddan, you have GOT to check out this site:

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxist/

They don't have "everything", but they've got damned near everything.

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:25 am on Dec. 11, 2002)

[antieverything]

"Every individual… intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his original intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

That is all you ever hear about Adam Smith...but he wasn't the ultra-free-market economist that conservatives today make him out to be...

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm this order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the produce, than three times an equal number of artizans, who, under their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building."
-- Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

[And here is what Adam Smith thought about labor unions:]

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is, unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual price."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations



...chew on that.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:06 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
Geddan, you have GOT to check out this site:

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxist/archive

They don't have "everything", but they've got damned near everything.

:cool:


Doesn't seem to work.

www.marxists.org is the correct URL.

[antieverything]

whoa...deja vu...I think I've posted this before.