Skip to main content

Which parts of Marx’s analysis do you think Smith would reject in The Communist Manifesto? What are Marx's and Engels' views of history and the...

Marx and Engels believed that history in Europe had progressed through five stages that were determined by people's access to needs such as food and clothing. These stages were primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. The proto-capitalist society developed out of trading activity during feudalism. Marx thought that the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries, such as the English Civil War and the French Revolution, arose from a revolt of people against feudalism, fed by the desire for people to free themselves from being tied to the land to work in factories or own means of production. 


During capitalism, the market governs the economy, and there is little government intervention. People, as Adam Smith wrote, are governed by their desire to make a profit. The revolutionary consequences of capitalism are that the bourgeoisie eventually demands more political representation, pushing forward democratic reforms that transform society and giving more people the right to vote.


However, Marx thought that the workers within capitalism would cause its downfall, as they did not have a fair share of its profits. He thought socialism would emerge once workers overthrew the capitalist bosses. Smith, who wrote The Wealth of Nations, would likely reject this idea, as he thought that people's motives for profit would make them invested in keeping the capitalist system working. In communism, which Marx thought would follow socialism, each person would be paid according to his or her needs, which Smith would also likely disagree with, as he  thought that people were motivated to work for selfish reasons that wound up providing necessary goods. Smith did not credit altruism or motives to help others with providing the necessary motivation for people to do work. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.