Though the ideas of Smith and Marx are often seen as polar opposites, many similarities can be found in the basis of their respective theories.
Adam Smith believed that the value of any good or commodity was best measured in labor. “If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer” (SMITH, 41). Smith continues by noting that it is natural for a good or commodity that requires double the labor of another to produce to be worth double the price of that commodity. Smithe refers to this labor cost as the natural value, or real value of a good. Later, we will see how this idea forms the basis of Karl Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. The concept of using labor as a unit of measurement makes sense, as it is a relatively universal unit of measurement, or so it seemed. The idea of labor being universal changed as society began to develop. Smith later revises his definition to accommodate for developments in the economy, specifically the move from hunter-gatherer tribes, as shown earlier, to established societies.
“When any …show more content…
“What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power? It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer” (Marx, Chapter 4?). Marx believed that a worker sold his labor to a capitalist, and therefore they needed to be compensated, fully, for their labor. He does seem to further clarify the definition though, as he points out the idea of maintenance, or an operating cost to the laborer. Just as Smith clarified his own definition, this should really only be seen as clarification, or perhaps a new interpretation, of an existing idea. The idea itself is certainly not unique to Marx, at least not
Adam Smith believed that the value of any good or commodity was best measured in labor. “If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer” (SMITH, 41). Smith continues by noting that it is natural for a good or commodity that requires double the labor of another to produce to be worth double the price of that commodity. Smithe refers to this labor cost as the natural value, or real value of a good. Later, we will see how this idea forms the basis of Karl Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. The concept of using labor as a unit of measurement makes sense, as it is a relatively universal unit of measurement, or so it seemed. The idea of labor being universal changed as society began to develop. Smith later revises his definition to accommodate for developments in the economy, specifically the move from hunter-gatherer tribes, as shown earlier, to established societies.
“When any …show more content…
“What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power? It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer” (Marx, Chapter 4?). Marx believed that a worker sold his labor to a capitalist, and therefore they needed to be compensated, fully, for their labor. He does seem to further clarify the definition though, as he points out the idea of maintenance, or an operating cost to the laborer. Just as Smith clarified his own definition, this should really only be seen as clarification, or perhaps a new interpretation, of an existing idea. The idea itself is certainly not unique to Marx, at least not