his situation as progress, while Marx did not. Smith believed that by using economic laws defined by political economists of the day in a laissez-faire economy, ôàhuman interests were naturally harmonious or that a stable social order could emerge naturally from a body of self-interested individualsö (From, p. 715).
Marx radically disagreed with the natural harmony proposed of capitalism by Smith. For Marx, the issue turns on the fact that the wage laborer, regardless of what his skills (and corresponding income) might be, is essentially dependent and vulnerable to the whims of the capitalist. Further, by having no vested interest in production other than potentially in stable wages, the laborer does not have any attachment to the products he creates. He is alienated from production and not allowed to participate in the profits of the enterprise. For Marx and Friedrich Engels, this was all to the direct disadvantage of the worker, who could not become self-actualizing, who was alienated from the products of his activity, who was alienated from the activity itself (having little control over its contents), and alienated from others because he was in direct competition with others for work. Marx and Engels felt history ôàproceeded dialectically or through social conflict,ö primarily due to this disadvantage for the workers in a capitalist system (From, p. 718).
The critical difference between the two - Smith and Marx - is that for Smith, the benefits accruing to society as a whole from entrepreneurial capitalism were seen as far outweighing the disadvantages that selected groups or individuals might experience. For Marx, the whole issue turned on questions of equity and equality. Marx felt that the concentration of
...