Summary: Can Capitalism Lead To Human Happiness?
Issue 1, titled “Can Capitalism Lead to Human Happiness?” contains arguments from three critical philosophical thinkers of the philosophical world, namely Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Simplified further, the issue stands as a comparative between which economic system is better equipped to provide the most happiness to the people, is it capitalism or communism? Capitalism goes by many names – liberal market economy and a free enterprise system. The word private becomes extremely vital in differentiating the two economic systems. Capitalism suggests that production and distribution of services are privately owned for private profit. All decisions are made by private entities rather than the government. Adam Smith, author of An
…show more content…
Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, vol. 1 and 2 (1869), concludes that yes, capitalism can lead to human happiness.
Communism is capitalism’s alter-ago, the ying to capitalism’s yang, the head to its tail. Exemplified by the cold war, the USSR marred the lines of Communism blurring into Absolutism. Communism does away with classifications in society while all is controlled by the government. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels reply suggesting a darker image of mankind. Their ideology suggests that if people as left to their own self-interests, the rich will keep getting richer, while the poor will keep getting poorer, thereby doing away with the middle class all together. They suggest that capitalism will create a divide between those who own the means of production and everyone else. Thereby, there will be a divide between happiness and misery.
The issue suggests that Adam Smith focuses on how the money is made and Karl Marx is more interested in how the wealth is distributed.
Marx argues that wealth in the hands of the fortunate lay waste and bares no profit to the nation as a whole. He suggests that proper and equal distribution of wealth will not only increase the morale of the labor force that helps the capitalist create the wealth but transforms a parochial into a consumer. (Someone who becomes an integral part of the society which he helps create) Smith answers the earlier statement in a manner that any business owner would; with a question. Shouldn’t he who takes risks be entitled to the reward? Simply said, what motivation would a business owner have of risking his wealth (new or old) if in the end, he would have to share the fruits of his risk with those who didn’t take any risk? Furthermore, entitlement gives a term to the act of sowing and reaping. Smith’s scope of audience is limited, the article suggests. In a world where technology changes developing nations into hyper developed nation states, monopolies are harder to control. The article suggests that Smith’s audience were owners who were too small to reshape the economies of
scale.
Both, Marx and Smith, are right in their own arguments and flawed in their statements as well. There is no absolute right answer to the question being asked because it is subjective in nature. There can be no objective scale to measure something that is as subjective as happiness. What makes one happy may be a cause of misery to another, and vice versa.
Adam Smith claims that capitalism can lead to human happiness. His reasoning as per the division of labor is profound. He suggests that even the simplest of processes require a multitude of talents being performed in absolute synchronization and harmony in order to create a successful output. I agree with his believe that placing the right talent in the right position will procure success. He proposes that happiness is not in equality, it is in identifying the special talents of those in society and harnessing them in a manner which bears fruitful results. Furthermore, I agree with his idea that capitalism creates many occupations that were previously unavailable. When the hungry are feed, they are happy. In the same manner, when the idle are given purpose, it creates happiness. He suggests that without capitalism and a free market economy, happiness would be scarce. If the means of production and the profit earned are controlled from beginning to end by an external entity, there is no room for talent, innovation or lifestyle. He suggests that if all are treated equally and doctors are given to learn agriculture, it would not only be a waste of talent but would lead to a reduction in happiness. Talent should and must override equality.
However, Smith did not take his audience into consideration. His view of capitalism, which would create personal and national happiness, was replaced by greed. After all, a businessman’s job is to create profit for himself. With the advent of technology and globalization, many industries are being outsourced for cheaper labor, thereby creating a void in place of happiness of the labor force of a developed nation. I believe that Smith’s lack of consideration in this aspect lowers his credibility in the particular argument.
Marx involves his argument on the basis the distribution of wealth. His vivid scale of where wealth resides creates an important illustration of how the rich is getting rich and the poor is getting poorer. Therefore, he suggests that a riddance of class is important for the happiness of all. His argument is utilitarian in nature. However, as Lord Byron suggests, “Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He fails to realize how easily the lines can be blurred between communism and socialism to absolutism and totalitarianism. From the aspects of viewing the past, USSR and all other proclaimed socialist and communist countries have turned absolute by nature. Marx’s view of people was dim in nature; I don’t understand why his view on the collective government would be positive. People are greedy by nature, how would a government with the potential of absolute control not be attracted to such greed and power. In a perfect world, Marx’s economic/political system would be ideal, however for this greedy world, Capitalism seems to bring more happiness to the most people in general. For reference, check the happiness meter of the people during the reign of the former USSR (Soviet Union) under Lenin-Stalin.
Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, vol. 1 and 2 (1869), concludes that yes, capitalism can lead to human happiness.
Communism is capitalism’s alter-ago, the ying to capitalism’s yang, the head to its tail. Exemplified by the cold war, the USSR marred the lines of Communism blurring into Absolutism. Communism does away with classifications in society while all is controlled by the government. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels reply suggesting a darker image of mankind. Their ideology suggests that if people as left to their own self-interests, the rich will keep getting richer, while the poor will keep getting poorer, thereby doing away with the middle class all together. They suggest that capitalism will create a divide between those who own the means of production and everyone else. Thereby, there will be a divide between happiness and misery.
The issue suggests that Adam Smith focuses on how the money is made and Karl Marx is more interested in how the wealth is distributed.
Marx argues that wealth in the hands of the fortunate lay waste and bares no profit to the nation as a whole. He suggests that proper and equal distribution of wealth will not only increase the morale of the labor force that helps the capitalist create the wealth but transforms a parochial into a consumer. (Someone who becomes an integral part of the society which he helps create) Smith answers the earlier statement in a manner that any business owner would; with a question. Shouldn’t he who takes risks be entitled to the reward? Simply said, what motivation would a business owner have of risking his wealth (new or old) if in the end, he would have to share the fruits of his risk with those who didn’t take any risk? Furthermore, entitlement gives a term to the act of sowing and reaping. Smith’s scope of audience is limited, the article suggests. In a world where technology changes developing nations into hyper developed nation states, monopolies are harder to control. The article suggests that Smith’s audience were owners who were too small to reshape the economies of
scale.
Both, Marx and Smith, are right in their own arguments and flawed in their statements as well. There is no absolute right answer to the question being asked because it is subjective in nature. There can be no objective scale to measure something that is as subjective as happiness. What makes one happy may be a cause of misery to another, and vice versa.
Adam Smith claims that capitalism can lead to human happiness. His reasoning as per the division of labor is profound. He suggests that even the simplest of processes require a multitude of talents being performed in absolute synchronization and harmony in order to create a successful output. I agree with his believe that placing the right talent in the right position will procure success. He proposes that happiness is not in equality, it is in identifying the special talents of those in society and harnessing them in a manner which bears fruitful results. Furthermore, I agree with his idea that capitalism creates many occupations that were previously unavailable. When the hungry are feed, they are happy. In the same manner, when the idle are given purpose, it creates happiness. He suggests that without capitalism and a free market economy, happiness would be scarce. If the means of production and the profit earned are controlled from beginning to end by an external entity, there is no room for talent, innovation or lifestyle. He suggests that if all are treated equally and doctors are given to learn agriculture, it would not only be a waste of talent but would lead to a reduction in happiness. Talent should and must override equality.
However, Smith did not take his audience into consideration. His view of capitalism, which would create personal and national happiness, was replaced by greed. After all, a businessman’s job is to create profit for himself. With the advent of technology and globalization, many industries are being outsourced for cheaper labor, thereby creating a void in place of happiness of the labor force of a developed nation. I believe that Smith’s lack of consideration in this aspect lowers his credibility in the particular argument.
Marx involves his argument on the basis the distribution of wealth. His vivid scale of where wealth resides creates an important illustration of how the rich is getting rich and the poor is getting poorer. Therefore, he suggests that a riddance of class is important for the happiness of all. His argument is utilitarian in nature. However, as Lord Byron suggests, “Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He fails to realize how easily the lines can be blurred between communism and socialism to absolutism and totalitarianism. From the aspects of viewing the past, USSR and all other proclaimed socialist and communist countries have turned absolute by nature. Marx’s view of people was dim in nature; I don’t understand why his view on the collective government would be positive. People are greedy by nature, how would a government with the potential of absolute control not be attracted to such greed and power. In a perfect world, Marx’s economic/political system would be ideal, however for this greedy world, Capitalism seems to bring more happiness to the most people in general. For reference, check the happiness meter of the people during the reign of the former USSR (Soviet Union) under Lenin-Stalin.