Smith & Marx's Definitions of Man

“Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another.”

The quotation above belongs to Adam Smith and it is not only his way of defining humans but also the distinction that separates humans from other animals, which reminds me of Karl Marx’s concept of ‘species being’.

Well, now it seems very tempting to compare Smith’s and Marx’s definitions and comparisons.

Bargain is the attempt to get something by paying less than its pre-decided price and it is a common thing in man’s world. Adam Smith believed that both the customer and the seller benefits from economic relationships as long as they get what they need. However, by nature humans are never satisfied with what they have, and have a never-ending desire to attain more; so, they try to get something while paying as little as possible. Marx, on the other hand, believes that man is a ‘species being’ who is universal in terms of needs and production; they produce more than necessary for later use, because satisfaction for the moment is not enough; instead, they organize their needs and production universally – considering any time and place.

In my opinion, while Marx’s definition is praise for humans, Smith’s definition is more prone to be understood as a criticism for humankind. For Marx, man is a higher being than non-human animals due to his superior way of living; however, Adam Smith’s quotation reminds me of the greedy, insatiable nature of humanity. Marx’s and Smith’s comparisons of humans to other animals support the conflict as well:

For Marx; humans are capable of working and enjoy working as a part of their lives for the chances of expressing themselves and meeting their needs; from this point arises their quality to build the future rather than the present moment only. This makes humans different from and pretty much superior to other animals. However, Smith highlights greed in his quotation because man is not seeking for an innovation or development but is merely showing his desire to have more in exchange of less. Besides, he does not compare man with an animal known for its hard work, serenity, etc. but uses dogs as the example of animal which is known for their aggression and violence for present needs. Considering these, I believe while Marx praises humanity in his definition of ‘species being’, Smith criticizes human nature. In my opinion, Smith has a more realistic explanation because even though Marx is right about human universality, humans maintain their greed and the desire for more even while practising this universality.