drive the decisions of the bourgeois (the capitalists), and the values that drive the decisions of the proletarians (the workers). Smith makes little or no mention of the two classes; because, all men do (or should) make decisions based on self interest. This includes the common workers, who would ideally have just as much right to change professions as anybody else at anytime they wish, and therefore, they will always sell their labor to the most profitable industries. Marx, in contrast to Smith, has humanitarian concerns in that he sees how the inherent self-interest of the upper class leads to the domination and exploitation of the working class: Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are the daily and hourly enslaved by machine, by the overlooker, and above all, by the individual manufacturer himself. (Marx 218) In contrast to this bleak picture that is given by Marx, Smith doesn’t see laborers as slaves, but rather, as free men with something to sell -- their labor. Actually, in Smith’s view, all men are laborers, since all must exert effort and/or capital -- which represents effort -- to create the effective product of their industry, and thus their final profit for themselves. In effect, Smith describes the general experience of modern capitalists, but in his view, all men are capitalists in a free economic society. Each of these philosophers had valid points to make, but they are focused on different targets. Certainly, they agree that the production of wealth in society is a good thing. They would not agree, however, on the “slave-like” condition of workers. Marx view is accurate, but Smith’s opinion is perfectly logical as well. Smith could easily argue: “wh...
