Adam Smith is known as the "father of capitalism", while his peer, Karl Marx, is known as the "father of communism". The thoughts of these two men differ as a general rule; however, there is a certain similarity in thought behind many of their thoughts. The main contrasts include their thoughts on the division of labor and how products and businesses should be valued and evaluated by manufacturers, while the basic similarity between the two includes their views on the benefits of rivalry between product manufacturers and businesses. no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayThe division of labor hypothesis fits the purposes that if individuals in the general public specialize in explicit professions or races in their work, at this point At this point, the output of the general public will be much greater than if individuals somehow managed to work on their own. Adam Smith described this improved performance as the reason for the increased fluency of learning; developments of device plans and reserve funds on time due to commitments that do not evolve. Smith argued that the division of labor would be astonishing even if everyone was indistinguishable due to the possibility of discovering profitable boundaries (Munger 2018). Karl Marx considered this thinking unsuitable for society. He thought it was inappropriate to force men to fight and saw the division of labor as the reason for a social hierarchy. This social progression was the cause of monetary contrasts caused by the specialization of various professions, which had unequal budgetary incentives for work. He argued that this society was disruptive and raised social issues through opposition. Adam Smith suspected that organizations should be able to provide as many products or services as they need and that they should be able to charge buyers whatever price they accept based on the giant's estimate or service. He believed that customers would eventually buy a decent product or benefit when the price was at a point where they expected to profit from it. This would cause the market to reach a point of equilibrium in which both manufacturers and customers would benefit from each other. Adam Smith is the author of this “undetectable hand” hypothesis. The hypothesis also expresses that when left to their own gadgets, individuals will act in light of their own personal affairs, thus making a fair argument for harmony. Karl Marx argued that allowing manufacturers to define their own values ​​was a fundamental variable contributing to worker mistreatment. Marx had confidence in the significant value labor hypothesis, which states that “the valuation of an item can be fairly estimated by the normal number of hours of labor required to create that item” (Prychitko 2018). Considering this, Marx argued that charging customers for something more remarkable than the specialists' estimate of the work put into the item was a misuse of workers. Marx believes that when specialists are paid at a rate that is not commensurate with the price at which they deliver, it creates a surplus of esteem. This excess esteem is what causes profits to flow into the pockets of the organization's owners. Both Adam and Marx were convinced that competition between creators was beneficial to society.society as a whole. Smith believed that competition among producers was lucrative because it gave the buyer a choice of where to purchase the products, thus keeping the manufacturer legitimate and reasonable to the buyer. According to Marx, “the only protection against entrepreneurs is the competitor, who, according to the principles of political economy, acts valuablely by increasing compensation and reducing the tax estimate.of the good in the eyes of the open in expansion” (Marx 2018). Although Marx saw the advantages of rivalry between creators, he also observed the disadvantages of opposition. Marx was convinced that the opposition would inevitably morph into another camp and therefore lead to an imposing economic model in which one manufacturer crushed the others. Two major differences in the ideas of Smith and Karl lie in the division of labor and how goods and property are valued. services. The similarity discussed concerned their views on the benefits of competition between producers. Although many of Adam and Karl's ideas and theories differ, there are parallels. Marx, Karl. MS, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Accessed November 2, 2018. Profit of Capital.Munger, Michael. “Division of labor”. The Library of Economy and Liberty. February 5, 2018. Accessed November 2, 2018. Division of Labor - Econlib.North, Gary. Free market economy. Edited by Bettina Greaves. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1975. 212-15. Prychitko, David. 'Marxism.' The Library of Economy and Liberty. February 5, 2018. Accessed November 2, 2018. Marxism - Econlib. Although Carl chastised Adam for his approach to financial matters, he also credited him with trying to find out in one way what really mattered to the company. In other words, Carl's fundamental difficulties with traditional market analysts like Adam, François, Ricardo were that they did not go far enough in their discoveries, now one could say that Carl and Friedrich went a little too far far with 7 to 8 million composed words that he left for us, I would say he did not live long enough. Adam trusted that individuals would be good and reasonable when it came to exchanges and that in such a society everything would end well. One way or another, the extent of wars, abuse and mistreatment since his time has demonstrated that there is something unique going on within capitalist society. that's not good or reasonable, and that's where Carl comes in, what Carl brought up that whatever you do within capitalism, it can't be done to meet the basic needs of the greater part of the regular working community, essential on the grounds that all wealth is produced through their labor, and the unpaid part of the influence of specialization in labor that Carl calls the favor of the superfluous goes to the capitalist boss. The worker is paid just enough to survive, which is why, as a specialist, you usually feel like you don't have enough money, even if the company continues to live a real existence. extravagance (especially the extreme among them). Carl wasn't the first to argue that wealth comes from the labor of the working class, but he was the first to take apart capitalism so you could see precisely how it works, and his decision was that the best What the average workers of the world could do was to sort out the abolition of capitalism and supplant it with a corporate arrangement dependent on basic ownership and majority rule control of the methods and instruments of provision and of.