Adam Smith is known as the “father of capitalism”, on the other hand his peer, Karl Marx, is known as the “father of communism”. The thoughts of these two men generally differ; however there is some similarity in thinking behind a large number of their thoughts. Key contrasts include their views on the division of labor and how products and businesses should be valued and valued by producers, while the fundamental similarity between the two includes their perspectives on the benefits of rivalry between product producers and businesses . no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The division of labor hypothesis is the point that if individuals from a general public engage in explicit professions or errands within their work, at that point At this point the performance of the general public will be much more important than if individuals were somehow able to work alone. Adam Smith described this improvement in yield as the reason for greater fluency in learning; apparatus plan developments and reserve funds in time due to failure of enterprises to evolve. Smith argued that the division of labor would be surprising even if all people were indistinguishable because of the possibility of profit limits being discovered (Munger 2018). Karl Marx saw this thinking as what was wrong with society. He thought it was out of place to force men to contend and saw the division of labor as the reason for a hierarchical social order. This social progression was the reason for the monetary conflicts caused by the specialization of various occupations, which had unequal budgetary motivations for work. He supported this disrupted society and raised social issues through the opposition. Adam Smith suspected that companies should be able to provide as much product or administration as they need, and that they should be able to charge buyers whatever value they accept in line with the administration's estimate. He trusted that customers could purchase a good or benefit when the price was at a point where they hoped to profit. This would cause the market to move towards an equilibrium point where the two producers and customers profited from each other. Adam Smith formulated the "undetectable hand" hypothesis. The hypothesis also expresses that, if left to their own devices, people will act on their own personal issues, thus creating a right point of harmony. Karl Marx argued that allowing producers to set their own value targets was a key variable contributing to the abuse of workers. Marx had faith in the labor hypothesis of significant value, which expresses that “the value of an item can be fairly estimated by the normal number of hours of labor required to create that item” (Prychitko 2018). In view of this, Marx argued that charging customers anything more than the estimated work done by product specialists was an abuse of workers. Marx believes that when specialists are paid less than what the greats they are offering are selling for, a surplus of esteem is created. This surplus of esteem is what creates the benefits that go into the pockets of the company owners. Adam and Marx both believed that contending among producers was beneficial to society at large. Smith believed that competition between manufacturers was profitable because it gave the buyer the ability to decide where to purchase the product from, thus keeping the manufacturer legitimate andreasonable towards the consumer. According to Marx, "the only safeguard against entrepreneurs is the contender, who according to the foundations of political economy acts in a valuable way both by increasing compensation and by lowering the tax estimate of the good to the advantage of open spending" (Marx 2018). Although Marx saw the advantages of rivalry between producers, he also noted the negative aspects of competition. Marx was confident that the opposition would inevitably swing to the other side and consequently lead to a massive business model as one manufacturer would overwhelm the others. Two main differences in Smith and Karl's ideas are based on the division of labor and how to value goods and possessions. services. The similarity discussed was their views on the benefits of competition between producers. Although most of Adam and Karl's ideas and theories differ, parallels can be found. 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 Freedom. February 5, 2018. Accessed November 2, 2018. Division of Labor - Econlib.North, Gary. Free market economics. By Bettina Greaves. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1975. 212-15.Prychitko, David. 'Marxism.' The Library of Economy and Freedom. 5 February 2018. Accessed 2 November 2018. Marxism - Econlib. Despite the fact that Carl chastised Adam for his attempts in financial matters, he equally gave him credit for attempting to find out what truly mattered to the company in a way to put it bluntly, Carl's fundamental difficulty with Traditional market analysts like Adam, François, Ricardo were not taking their findings far enough, now one could say that Carl and Friedrich took things a little too far with 7-8 million composed words that he left for we, I would say he didn't live long enough. Adam trusted that people were good and reasonable when it came to trading and in such a society everything was fine in the end. In some ways, if nothing else, the extent of wars, abuse and mistreatment since his time has demonstrated that there is something unique happening within capitalist society. it's not good or reasonable, and that's where Carl comes in, what Carl pointed out by saying that whatever you do within capitalism cannot be done to meet the basic needs of the majority of the essential regular work community on the basis that all wealth is produced using their labor, and the unpaid portion of specialization in labor influence that Carl calls superfluous favor goes to the capitalist boss. The worker is paid just enough to keep him at a subsistence level, this is why as a specialist you generally feel you don't have exactly enough money, even if the business continues with a real existence of extravagance (particularly the extremely rich among them). Carl was not the first to point out that wealth comes from the labor of the working class, but he was the first to separate capitalism so we could see exactly how it works, and his decision was that capitalism is the best thing that the average workers of the world they could do was solve the problem of the annulment of capitalism and replace it with a structure of society dependent on basic ownership and majority control of the methods and tools for providing and circulating wealth through and in light of a legitimate concern for the entire network, a ruined, stateless, ageless, crude world society where ethics and decency would be a legacy. Carl said/educated to.