Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Durkheim: Comparing Economic and Sociological Theories

Adam Smith: Life and Economic Theories

Adam Smith was born in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, in 1723. He entered the University of Glasgow at the age of 14, studying moral philosophy, and then continued on to postgraduate studies at the University of Oxford.

The Wealth of Nations (TWN)

Smith opposed the mercantilist theory, which emphasized the importance of trade in increasing a nation’s wealth and maintaining a positive trade balance. He argued that the wealth generated by mercantilism primarily benefits the rich, leaving little opportunity for working or middle-class individuals to prosper freely.

Societal Growth and Government’s Role

Smith believed that the government should be responsible for providing public goods such as highways and canals, as well as the general maintenance of the state. He also viewed government regulation as beneficial for certain institutions, such as banks. Alongside these regulations and responsibilities, he advocated for a progressive taxation system similar to the one used today, arguing that the wealthy benefit the most from government programs and should, therefore, pay more in taxes.

Adam Smith believed that consumption drives the economy. He also posited that free market forces, behaving as the ‘invisible hand’, would eventually lead to societal benefit, implying that such outcomes are unintended by the individual.

Karl Marx: Critique of Capitalism

The Communist Manifesto

Marx believed that the capitalist system favored the rich and exploited the working class. He viewed labor as a commodity that workers sell to capitalists for a wage, referring to this commodity as ‘labor power.’ Within this framework, Marx created the concept of the ‘rate of exploitation,’ defining it as surplus value (profits incurred after paying for labor) divided by variable capital (wages paid for the production of a commodity).

He believed that people are by nature free and creative beings, and working for the capitalist inevitably alienates them and essentially treats them like objects. For Marx, consumption and production are cyclical events that depend on one another. The low wages earned by workers would cause a decrease in consumption, and as a result, capitalism will forever be in a state of crisis and class struggle.

Differences and Similarities Between Smith and Marx

The main characteristic that divided these two famous economists was that Smith was a proponent of capitalism, while Marx was a communist. A key similarity between the two was that both examined the inner workings of capitalism and used these observations to make predictions about the future, converging in their vision of an ideal society. Ultimately, their goals of stabilizing the economy and government are what united their ideologies; it is the paths to these goals where they differed.

The crises that Marx speaks of can be related to modern-day recessions in which there is under-consumption. However, the problem with his theory is that it supposes these crises are constant rather than occurring as cyclical events. Many nations have tried to adopt Marxist philosophies and have failed. These countries started to lean towards capitalism and free market principles inspired by Adam Smith. Based on the performance history of these countries, it appears that Adam Smith’s concept of a market-driven economy has triumphed over time.

Durkheim on Religion

The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life

In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Durkheim set out to do two things: establish that religion was not divinely or supernaturally inspired and was, in fact, a product of society; and identify the common things that religion placed an emphasis upon, as well as what effects those religious beliefs (the product of social life) had on the lives of all within a society.

Durkheim argued that religion acted as a source of solidarity and identification for the individuals within a society, especially as a part of mechanical solidarity systems, and to a lesser, but still important extent, in the context of organic solidarity.