Marx Vs. Smith And Marx's Division Of Labor

1012 Words null Page
The division of labor is, in some ways, the best thing to happen to society. Smith states, “The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of skill, dexterity, and judgement with which it is any where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour” (Smith.1). Work has never been as productive, commodities never as accessible. However, work has never been so harmful to the worker. Marx holds that the vast majority of the benefits to be reaped by division of labor in the capitalist system are taken by the Capitalist and Bourgeois classes. The further division of labor and productivity increases, the less valuable the worker becomes: “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production …show more content…
The author’s stances become evident in their views towards the plight of the laborer. Both Smith and Marx agree that laborers working under the capitalist system lose intellectual, moral, and physical capacity: “the torpor of his mind renders him, not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment” (Smith. 303). In addition, according to Marx, the alienating nature of this sort of labor is unnatural and pushes workers to act in unnatural ways. Their labor is forces, and when working “[they] are not at home” (Marx. 74). Marx sees this human degradation as a phenomenon historically specific to capitalism. Smith sees the issue as natural and transhistorical: “But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some paints to prevent it” (Smith. 303). Smith, then, may be said to be a champion of society while Marx is a champion of the

Related Documents