People have been debating the structure of the governments and the economic systems during centuries. These arguments began with the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith in 1776. He discusses the basic principles of "Capitalism" in his book. However, in 1848, a new idea called "Communism" comes up with The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx. These two ideas seem to be opposite, in fact, they differ in many ways; however, they also have something in common. In this essay, first of all, I will analyze these two texts to find out the differences and similarities between the ideas of Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Then, I will move on to the effects of these two men's ideas on today's governments and economies. .
As it is said above, there are many differences between The Wealth of Nations and The Communist Manifesto. It is not surprising because The Communist Manifesto was written in order to oppose the idea Adam Smith mentioned in The Wealth of Nations. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith claimed that the governments should encourage entrepreneurs so as to increase the productivity. In other words, governments should set free the individuals in their business area. Increasing the wealth of the individuals result in increasing the wealth of whole country for Smith. Since the governments do not control the individuals, they have the opportunity to do whatever they want with their wealth such as broadening and developing their job, which is for the good of society. For Smith, this is important not only for a better economy but also for people who need a job. .
On the other hand, according to Marx, the owners of factories who are bourgeois utilize the labor of working class who are proletarians. He says: " As privates of the industrial army they (laborers) 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 daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overseer, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself"(422).