Karl Marx and Adam Smith are both economists with theories of capital accumulation. Karl Marx was a German doctor of Philosophy. Adam Smith who was a Scottish moral philosopher developed a similar theory. The theories differ in the way they perceive labor value. Smith’s theory has a clear argument on capital accumulation such as his explanation for unproductive/productive labor in comparison to Marx. Marx’s explanation of productive labor, critique of abstinence theory, exploitation, and the so-called labor fund is less effective. Adam Smith was considered to be the father of economics. He was a professor at the University of Glasgow. He was the author of a book, The Wealth of Nations, which made him a better-known economist. Smith presents
…show more content…
In his chapters, he provided a critique of Nassau W. Senior’s abstinence theory. Senior replaced capital with abstinence. Marx explained how capitalists during an earlier era would make themselves more glorified. But in reality, these “capitalists” were struggling and did not have much. His critique explained how capitalists allocated their money and how it affects a nation. Looking back into earlier eras, capitalists struggled to gather money, which restricted them from filtering it back into the economy. Marx explained how the capitalist’s expansion theory in the modern 19th century has developed that convention degree of prodigality doesn’t take much change of surplus value, and has little effect on the rate of accumulation. In Marx’s time, a conventional degree of prodigality shows wealth. This degree becomes a necessity in doing …show more content…
Smith explains that division of labor help increases the productivity of labor by breaking down a task into various parts. When workers perform tasks in smaller parts it increased his/her efficiency. In his book the Wealth of Nations, he expressed that there were three benefits of division of labor. First, that it would increase the awareness and cleverness of workers, saving the time required to produce a commodity, and that there would be more innovative machines and equipment to come.
It’s apparent that Karl Marx and Adam Smith hold similar standpoints on capital accumulation, but at the same time differ base on the labor aspects. Both Marx and Smith share the same idea that when a surplus is present that it would the most beneficial to use that surplus in investment to gain more capital. Also, they both share similarities in the fact that both believe that in order to be productive labor that value needs to be added by the
In his chapters, he provided a critique of Nassau W. Senior’s abstinence theory. Senior replaced capital with abstinence. Marx explained how capitalists during an earlier era would make themselves more glorified. But in reality, these “capitalists” were struggling and did not have much. His critique explained how capitalists allocated their money and how it affects a nation. Looking back into earlier eras, capitalists struggled to gather money, which restricted them from filtering it back into the economy. Marx explained how the capitalist’s expansion theory in the modern 19th century has developed that convention degree of prodigality doesn’t take much change of surplus value, and has little effect on the rate of accumulation. In Marx’s time, a conventional degree of prodigality shows wealth. This degree becomes a necessity in doing …show more content…
Smith explains that division of labor help increases the productivity of labor by breaking down a task into various parts. When workers perform tasks in smaller parts it increased his/her efficiency. In his book the Wealth of Nations, he expressed that there were three benefits of division of labor. First, that it would increase the awareness and cleverness of workers, saving the time required to produce a commodity, and that there would be more innovative machines and equipment to come.
It’s apparent that Karl Marx and Adam Smith hold similar standpoints on capital accumulation, but at the same time differ base on the labor aspects. Both Marx and Smith share the same idea that when a surplus is present that it would the most beneficial to use that surplus in investment to gain more capital. Also, they both share similarities in the fact that both believe that in order to be productive labor that value needs to be added by the