马克思、恩格斯主要批判斯密的劳动分工模式，揭示了工人与产品的异化，揭示了资本主义市场对劳动者的剥削。具体地说，马克思、恩格斯论证了在资本主义经济中，工人不是产品的所有者，而是与劳动产品的异化。在这方面，资本主义市场中的劳动分工剥削劳动者，这将导致劳动者所面临的不平等加剧，而不是斯密所强调的为劳动者创造更多的就业机会、自由和自治。与此同时，马克思、恩格斯也指出，劳动分工并没有给全体公民带来普遍的社会富裕，因为工人在社会财富分配中所占的比例较低，因为资本家能够利用劳动力的剩余价值。马克思和恩格斯介绍了历史上的生产方式，试图探讨劳动分工对工人的影响。具体来说，马克思指出，在资本主义经济中，劳动分工主要定义了分配给工人和资本家的特定角色，因为工人被迫与资本家以劳动换取金钱(第205页)。一方面，马克思和恩格斯承认劳动分工在提高生产力方面的作用，因为他们指出工人可以通过劳动的专业化来提高生产力。另一方面，马克思、恩格斯认为，劳动分工使资本家能够通过占有生产资料和资本来占有劳动者的剩余劳动价值。在这方面，由于资本家对生产资料的控制和所有权，使他们能够支配工人，因此他们可以适当利用剩余劳动力的价值。因此，马克思、恩格斯认为，劳动分工是资本家剥削劳动者的工具。斯密可能会对马克思和恩格斯的批评作出回应，指出劳动分工在促进经济发展方面具有直接和现实的意义。在这方面，斯密可能认为劳动分工并不一定导致剥削和统治。相反，是社会制度把劳动分工作为资本家剥削劳动者的工具。劳动分工不损害个人自由和自治，而是有利于工人享有更多的自由，因为他们能够打破以封建主义为代表的更严格的社会等级制度的限制。
澳洲悉尼论文代写:资本主义的劳动分工模式
Marx and Engels mainly criticize Smith’s model of the division of labor by unveiling the alienation of workers from their products and the exploitation facing laborers in the capitalist market. Specifically, Marx and Engels demonstrate that instead of being the owners of products, workers are alienated from their products of labor in the capitalist economy. In this aspect, the division of labor proves exploitative for laborers in the capitalist market, which will lead to increased inequalities facing laborers instead of creating more job opportunities, freedom and autonomy for workers as highlighted by Smith. Meanwhile, Marx and Engels also points out that the division of labor does not lead to a widespread social opulence for all citizens, because workers are underrepresented in the distribution of social wealth, as the capitalists are able to appropriate the surplus value of labor.Marx and Engels introduce the historical mode of production in an attempt to explore the effects of the division of labor over workers. Specifically, Marx points out that the division of labor mainly defines particular roles assigned to workers and capitalists in the capitalist economy, as workers are forced to trade their labor with capitalists for money (p. 205). One the one hand, Marx and Engels acknowledge the role of the division of labor in increasing productivity, as they point out that workers can have enhanced productivity through the specialization of labor. On the other hand, Marx and Engels argue that the division of labor allows the capitalists to appropriate the surplus value of the labor of laborers through possessing the production materials and capital. In this regard, the capitalists can appropriate the surplus value of labor because they are able to dominate over workers due to their control and ownership of the production materials. Thus, Marx and Engels conclude that the division of labor serves as a tool for the capitalists to exploit laborers. Smith might responds to the criticisms of Marx and Engels by pointing out that the division of labor can have direct and realistic implications in facilitating economic development. In this respect, Smith might argue that the division of labor does not necessarily lead to exploitation and domination. Instead, it is the social system that exploits the division of labor as a tool for the capitalists to exploit laborers. Rather than compromising individual freedom and autonomy, the division of labor is conducive for the development of increased freedom enjoyed by workers, because they are able to break the restrictions of stricter social hierarchies represented by feudalism.
如果你在悉尼读书遇到学术问题需要帮助可以联系我们精湛的 悉尼论文代写服务