Understanding the Human Nature and Capitalist Society

The appraisal of Karl Marx and Adam Smith's conceptions with regards to human nature, needs, conditions,
and capacities conceptualizes the ideology of capitalism and economics that echoes the illegitimate interest
and the status quo of the ruling class in a capitalist society. In this context, there exists a rivalry of interest,
especially with regards to perception and understanding of communist and capitalist thoughts of ruling
nations 1 . Fundamentally, it is also quite in order to affirm that the differences between Smith and Marx's
conceptions of the human needs and capacities in their quest for foreseeing a smooth functioning of capitalist
society were dependent on the totality of social relations and the conflicting theories of history and
methodologies 2 . The logic of historical change and class struggles demystifies the intent for two great
thinkers to perceive the significance regarding the development and the changes that occur in a
socioeconomic system that is susceptible to change based on conflicting ideologies. The fact that the concern
of social relations, progressive ideologies, and the socioeconomic conditions change and mature over time
denotes how dominant philosophy and science influence both Smith and Karl's ideologies 3 . However, the
paper presents a comprehensive context of the differences between Smith's and Marx's conceptions of human
nature, the human condition, human needs and capacities in a bid to understand the nature and functioning of
a capitalist society.
The description of the human needs and nature outlines the vested interest of the ruling class as outlined by
Karl Marx in his economic perception and visualization regarding the essence of capitalism, science, and
human nature. In this connection, the complex of reality on the basis of differing opinions arises since Adam
Smith could not foresee the challenges of capitalist systems that emanated during Karl Marx's life. Based on
the perception of Adam Smith's sense of argument detailing the aspect of human nature and capacities in a
capitalist state, it is quite imperative to note that the great thinker conceptualizes the ideology of political
economy with diverse approaches 4 . For instance, Adam Smith considers the aspect of productive labor and
unproductive labor as significant components of a political economy, particularly with regards to
understanding the capitalist society. In this regard, Smith sensitizes the fact that the ruling class in a capitalist
society or state focuses on the establishment of an affirmative foundation for the labor force to enable them
to maintain their status quo.
Ideally, the fact that Smith captures the philosophical standpoint that both the productive and unproductive
labor makes a capitalist society draws some level of contradiction on the basis of who benefits in such an
economy. Consequently, the finance theory of the population demystifies the concern of taking advantage of
people's needs and interests in a capitalist state. In this regard, the essence of capitalism denotes the fact that
everyone is for himself or for herself. Hence, the culture of satisfying the vested interest of the most powerful
in a political economy describes the thoughts of Adam Smith regarding the critical assessment of nature and
the functioning of capitalist society 5 . Additionally, the concern of the landed property and taxes outlines the
level of contradiction between Karl Marx's philosophical thoughts and Adam Smith's understanding of
human nature and needs in a capitalist state. For instance, it is evident that the landed property and the
resources accrued from taxes falls in the hands of the most powerful individuals in a capitalist government.
Given the philosophy and ideology of Karl Marx, the contradiction of thoughts comes from the perspective
of the economic structure of the bourgeois economic system. In this case, the economic structure is designed
in such a manner that only benefits the super-rich individuals in a bourgeois economic system. Karl Marx's
political ideology regarding the ruling and the management of a political state, especially in the context of a
functioning capitalist system, tend to construct an alternative theory to counter the thoughts of Adam Smith.
Consequently, it is conclusive to affirm that Karl Marx appraises or rather perceived Adam Smith as an
explorer of thoughts that described the terrain of a political system in a bourgeois economy 6 . Karl Marx
believed that in as much as Adam Smith outlined the essentialities of determining the source of wealth in a
functioning state, there existed numerous circumstances of contradictions in his discussion of the sense of
human nature and needs in both esoteric and exoteric perspectives. However, Karl Marx tends to mirror the
philosophical standpoint of a bourgeois state in a bid to provide an amicable solution to the critical
assessment of human nature and the functioning of a capitalist society.
Given the perception of Karl Max, the source of wealth of nations is an idealistic determinant and a requisite
platform for political practice. In this connection, a society cannot engage in a healthy political practice with
diminishing returns of wealth accruals. Karl Max notes the essence of wealth and productive to determine the
maturity of a nation to establish a safer and sustainable political economy 7 . Conversely, Adam Smith only
mirrored the position of the most powerful individuals in a political economy but failing to provide
comprehensive insights on how the industrial labor can contribute to the performance and success of a
capitalist society. The conflicting sense of perception between Adam Smith and Karl Marx's thoughts
regarding the supremacy of a political economy dwells on the ideology to use theory to influence or unite the
understanding of a capitalist society. In this regard, using the theory to unite is based on the conceptualization
that the industrial labor and the productivity of the human capital define the needs, capacities, and nature of
humanity in a capitalist society.
In view of the line of thought regarding the logic of historical change and class struggle, using the theories to
influence dwells on the essence of using political powers to redesign the structures and powers of the state to
establish a society that benefits the most powerful individuals in a state. Fundamentally, the consideration of
Faustian's attempt in defining the significance of establishing a healthy and sustainable political economy
outlines the intention of developing the mechanisms of defining the modern world 8 . The design and the
development of the structure of a present society at the time of Adam Smith and Karl Marx's contemplation
of the complexities of human nature and needs in functioning capitalist societies mirror the inner physiology
of bourgeois society. Hence, Smith's sense of thought about the historical development of the political
revolution demystifies the economic progress in the current capitalist societies. In view of Karl Marx's
dominant theory of establishing a safer and prosperous world, it is quite imperative to note that the economic
battles fought in the current century arises from the conflicting opinions of both the great thinkers 9 . For
instance, the concept of fundamental human activity labor is a philosophic thought of Karl Marx.
Based on the notion of human activity labor, Karl Marx attempts to distinguish between labor, commodity,
and property as the major platforms of defining the need and reason for establishing a capitalist state. In this
context, the fact that labor is an individualistic concern people or rather an individual to make a living out of
personal struggles denotes the aspect and the indication of the sense of self-interests in a capitalist society.
On the same note, the fact that commodity is considered in an exchange of services confirms Karl Max's
sense of argument about the fact the rising concern of industrial labor dominating the capitalist states.
Furthermore, the access to property clarifies the essence of human activity, as described in Marx's economic
and philosophic manuscripts of 1844, that outlines the essence of critiquing a political economy 10 .
Additionally, the development of capitalism and industry denotes the essence and the role played by human
nature, needs, and capacities in redefining the popular culture of understanding the perception of capitalist
society 11 . In this regard, capitalism and industry created the modern world that humanity currently
appraises by doing business.
Consequently, Karl Marx outlined the concept regarding the wages of labor, the profit of capital, and the rent
of land in his understanding of the dynamics of establishing a capitalist society. In this regard, the wages of
labor enhance the concern of human capital and productivity in the creation of an independent nation.
Consequently, the profit on capital and the rent on land derive the sense of economic success that establishes
the platform for the development of a sustainable political economy 12 . Karl Marx, in his sense of
enthusiasm in advocating for the understanding of Smith's ideology of the possibility and the existence of the
capitalist society, in the foreseeable future during his century. Marx clarifies the issue of the social system. In
this connection, the social system is conceptualized as a hallmark of human nature, especially in the context
of understanding the transitory and divisive perception of humanity. The fact that there exist political
wrangles and contradicting thoughts of humanity affirms the reason for the existence of capitalist society or
rather the capitalistic market system.
Given the concept of political wrangles, especially on the conflicts of theories of history and historical
change, the role played by Karl Marx does not conceptualizes the failure of Adam Smith thoughts regarding
the human nature but attempts to build the bridges of ensuring the humanity understands the methodologies
that led to establishment of capitalist society in today’s world. For instance, Smith echoed the tendency to
universalize the status quo of the most powerful in a capitalist society as a requisite platform for defining
contradiction, change, and the development of the selfish interest of the mankind 13 . However, Karl Marx
came into the limelight through the elaboration of the concern regarding the suppression of history in a bid to
establish a market environment full of contradictive thoughts of the political economy. Surprisingly, the
critical assessment of the nature and functioning of a capitalist society conceptualizes human nature, needs,
and capacities as transitory in nature, and this confirms the contradictive thoughts of establishing the
fundamental human activity labor for the development of a political economy.
Karl Marx categorizes the perception of human needs and capacities in a capitalistic state as a dominant
influence from philosophy and science. In this regard, humans may show a drastic change in behavior on the
basis of restructuring of market dynamics opinions that dwell on political, philosophical standpoints. Given
the Marxist theory that affirms that political systems and institutions, ideologies, and the market perception
are transitory, it is quite conclusive to note that the culture and the humanistic tradition to explore the
dynamics of life is based on the perception of human needs and capacities. In this connection, the fact that
the human mind is inquisitive in nature, the need to explore and find a better life for humanity affirms the
significance of the two great thinkers 14 . Hence, the development of capitalism and industry through
equitable distribution of wages of labor, profit accrued from the capital, and the rent on land demystify the
essence of the humanistic tradition. The perception the mankind's evolution and the development of the
minds closely link Karl Mark's ideology of understanding the capitalist culture in the modern economy.
The fact that the human mind develops based on the daily experiences and thoughts conveys the thought of
why human capacities pave the way to new socioeconomic systems that promotes the economic culture of
capitalism. It is conceptualized that Adam Smith failed to outline the essentiality of how developmental
ideologies and social relations take center stage in the conceptualization of a capitalist society. In his sense of
the foreseeable future, Adam Smith sensitized the challenges and realities that come with progressive
philosophical thoughts but failed to demarcate a methodology of achieving a sustainable political economy
15 . Conversely, Karl Marx came into the limelight to outline a comprehensive understanding of how the
social relations, political ideologies, and socioeconomic conditions impact on the achievement of a capitalist
society. In his sense of argument, Karl Marx echoed the fact that social relations, progressive political
ideologies, and the social, economic conditions in a person's life change and mature with time, and this
demystifies the reasoning behind the existence of capitalism in the modern economy. Hence, the perspective
of humanistic contradiction, conflict, and struggle to achieve power presents a bigger picture of the journey
to establishing and achieving the essence of capitalism.
Based on Karl Marx's thoughts regarding the journey to establishing a platform for capitalism in the modern
world, it comes out quite categorically that the elimination of institutions and eradication of obsolete
thoughts of philosophers enhanced the nature and understanding of a capitalist society. It is worth noting that
both Adam Smith and Karl Marx idealized both the conflicting theories of history and methodologies to
affirm the possibility of coming into reality with capitalism in the modern economy 16 . Hence, the
description of human nature, human needs, and human capacities in a capitalist state echo the totality of
social relations and the dynamics that exist in the historical movement. The smooth function of the capitalist
states in the modern world is deeply rooted in the understanding of both the political and industrial revolution
that was developed by the great thinker Karl Marx. Consequently, in view of the perception of the two great
thinkers, it is quite imperative to note that the logic of historical change and class struggles are perceived as
the most idealistic platform for enabling the transition from feudalism to capitalism on the basis of both
historical change and industrial revolution 17 .
In conclusion, it is quite conclusive to affirm that the differences between Smith and Marx's conceptions of
human nature, needs, and capacities, especially in connection to the functioning of capitalist societies dwells
on the totality of social relations and the industrial revolution. In this context, the understanding of the
political economy in a capitalist society is based on the concern of contradiction of both economic and
political structures in a bourgeois economic system. Additionally, the philosophical standpoint of
establishing a capitalist state signifies the essence and source of wealth as a crucial segment for political
practice 18 . Ideally, the productivity of the human capital and the industrial labor sets the foundation for a
state to appraise its wealth in a bid to establish a platform for exercising a sustainable political practice.
Ultimately, the critical assessment of human nature and needs, and their quest for achieving a smooth
function capitalist society denotes the logics of historical change and class struggle.
Bibliography
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist
manifesto . Prometheus Books, 1977.
Marx, Karl. "Introduction to the Grundrisse." Marx’s Later Political (1996): 128-157.
Poggi, Gianfranco. The state: Its nature, development, and prospects . Stanford University Press, 1990.
Smith, Adam. "The wealth of nations [1776]." (1937).
1 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist
manifesto . Prometheus Books, 1977.
2 Marx, Karl. "Introduction to the Grundrisse." Marx’s Later Political (1996): 128-157.
3 Poggi, Gianfranco. The state: Its nature, development, and prospects. Stanford University Press, 1990.
4 Smith, Adam. "The wealth of nations [1776]." (1937).
5 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist
manifesto. Prometheus Books, 1977.
6 . Marx, Karl. "Introduction to the Grundrisse." Marx’s Later Political (1996): 128-157.
7 Marx, Karl. "Introduction to the Grundrisse." Marx’s Later Political (1996): 128-157.
8 Marx, Karl. "Introduction to the Grundrisse." Marx’s Later Political (1996): 128-157.
9 Marx, Karl. "Introduction to the Grundrisse." Marx’s Later Political (1996): 128-157.
10 . Marx, Karl. "Introduction to the Grundrisse." Marx’s Later Political (1996): 128-157.
11 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the
Communist manifesto . Prometheus Books, 1977.
12 . Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the
Communist manifesto . Prometheus Books, 1977.
13 Smith, Adam. "The wealth of nations [1776]." (1937).
14 Smith, Adam. "The wealth of nations [1776]." (1937).
15 Poggi, Gianfranco. The state: Its nature, development, and prospects . Stanford University Press, 1990.
16 Poggi, Gianfranco. The state: Its nature, development, and prospects . Stanford University Press, 1990.
17 Poggi, Gianfranco. The state: Its nature, development, and prospects . Stanford University Press, 1990.
18 Poggi, Gianfranco. The state: Its nature, development, and prospects . Stanford University Press, 1990.