Freedom, Responsibility, and a Defense of Capitalism By Jeremiah Breen Capitalism has been held in varying degrees of contempt and

praise, scorn and admiration, criticism and approval, from eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers to modern-day theorists. One of its first serious advocates, the moral philosopher Adam Smith, saw capitalism as a system of economics that preserved natural laws that, if disrupted, would upset a nations growth and the natural order of things. Karl Marx, on the othe r hand, saw capitalism as merely one of five historical epochs, a necessary step to reach the end of history: communism.1 Some philosophers, following Marx, have argued that capitalism destroys an individuals freedom; others, following Smith, have argued that capitalism supports freedom far better than any other system of economics is capable of doing. For the purposes of this essay, I will assume that neither freedom nor its resultant responsibility can be destroyed. By a free choice I mean that an individual is the sole author of that choice. The responsibility that follows from this I term metaphysical responsibility

meaning, as Jean-Paul Sartre puts it, that the individual is conscious of being the incontestable author of the events or objects that follow from that choice.2 Metaphysical responsibility implies what I call social responsibility, by which I mean the requirement that an individual promote the betterment of society. The denial of metaphysical responsibility would entail the

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch, and James Fieser. Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print. 2 Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology . London: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Breen

denial of freedom. However, the denial of social responsibility would not entail the denial of freedom, but rather a deficient mode of social responsibility which it makes sense to call irresponsibility. I will argue that capitalism is a preferable economic system as it necessitates the fulfillment of each individuals social responsibility while communism allows for the possibility that an individuals social responsibility decay into irresponsibility. Capitalism came to prominence in the eighteenth century,3 part of the movement known as individualism. Unlike collectivism, which stressed the importance of the collective group, the whole, or the state over the individual, individualism placed emphasis on the individual. Thus, capitalism, as an economic theory, places more value and significance on the individual than on any single group of people. Capitalism can be thought of as the theory of capital. Capital, in this sense, can be translated as either wealth or the means of production. The means of production include factories, equipment and tools, land, and the natural resources that are all utilized in the production of material things. In capitalistic societies, the means of production are owned by individuals, or groups of individuals, as opposed to the state. In socialism, the means of production are owned by the state. This means that the state controls the production, distribution, and exchange of goods. This notion is absent in capitalistic theory. In capitalism, the government cannot determine how many of a specific product is to be made. Theoretically, the government, in fact, has absolutely no control over any aspect of product production. The control is solely in the hands of the owners of the means of production,

Dowd, Douglas Fitzgerald. Capitalism and Its Economics: A Critical History. London: Pluto, 2000. Print.

Breen

though aspects of the market may tend to influence their decisions.4 This is the essence of a market economy, of which capitalism is an example. A market economy is one in which owners of property and the means of production make economic decisions based on their interests, experience, and capability. In contrast, a command economy is one in which the state handles all economic decisions. Capitalism is an example of a market economic system while socialism is an example of a command economic system. In socialism, there is no private property, the state owns the means of production, and thus makes all economic decisions. Communism, similarly, also does away with private property but there is no state. It is not a command economic system, but it abolishes all principles of the market economic system. Thus, communism is not a market economic system and socialism is a command economic system. Capitalism, on the other hand, being a market economic system, allows the independent owners of businesses and corporations to make economic decisions.5 The market economy, and, thus, capitalism, has several implications. The first is the specialization of labor.6 In pre-capitalistic societies, people made everything they needed, from clothing and tools to furniture and even their own houses. Each person was capable of performing a variety of tasks and creating numerous products that remained in the household. Specialization of labor, however, reverses this idea. In a capitalistic society, only a small portion of a familys needs are fulfilled through the familys own labor and skills. Not only are goods brought in from outside the household, fulfilling the familys needs through the effort
4

Ebenstein, William, and Edwin ,. Fogelman. Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Pg. 148. Print. 5 Ebenstein, William, and Edwin ,. Fogelman. Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Pg. 148 150. Print. 6 Dowd, Douglas Fitzgerald. Capitalism and Its Economics: A Critical History. London: Pluto, 2000. Print.

Breen

and energy of other people, but the family works and utilizes their skills to produce goods for others, not the family itself. The goods produced and services rendered are for the market, not the family. Because of this, each individual family member does not need to be skilled at performing a myriad of tasks. Instead, each individual focuses his or her efforts into the betterment of one particular skill. This skill is then utilized in the workplace. A historical example of this would be one of the various master craftsmen of feudal times. The cooper, for example, is very skilled at making barrels, more so than the average person. This allows the cooper to make barrels for a living and sell them. Others will pay the cooper for his barrels because they are of a higher quality than they themselves could produce. The cooper, in turn, takes the money made from selling his barrels and uses it to buy everything he and his family will need. The cooper does not make everything that is needed to fulfill his familys need, but uses the profit from selling his barrels to buy what he and his family will need. A more contemporary example would be the individual who works for a business owner, receives monetary compensation for the work done utilizing his or her particular skill, and then uses this compensation to purchase goods and products that are needed. This is not an attack on capitalism, however; both the cooper and the individual working on an assembly line tightening screws possess a skill. The difference is the technology involved. In modern times there is better technology, so that every barrel need not be produced by hand, one at a time. Instead, many can be produced at a faster rate, which is desirable, as the demand for most products has increased with the increasing population. Both the cooper of feudal times and the assembly-line worker of the modern age are examples of specialization of labor, albeit with different degrees of technology present, as well as different skills, and different degrees of

Breen

these skills. Profit, which is closely linked with supply and demand, is another implication of a market economy, and a basic characteristic of any capitalist system.7 For every product that is manufactured in a capitalistic society, there is a supply of that product, and a demand for it, as well. It is in the best interest of business leaders and the owners of the means of production to keep a products supply and demand in equilibrium; that is, to keep the supply of a product relatively equal to its demand. If the supply of a product skyrockets while the demand remains the same, the price of that product will fall. If the demand soars while the supply stays the same, the result will be a shortage of that particular product. When the supply of a product and the demand for it remain level, profit is at a maximum. Profit is very important for the owners of businesses and the means of production. Simply stated, profit is the cost of a products production including employee salaries and raw materials, manufacturing, advertising, and shipping costs subtracted from the revenue generated from the sales of that product. Typically, manufacturers attempt to minimize costs while maximizing profits. Profit, and the acquisition of wealth, is the driving force behind capitalism; it is the motivation for individuals to work and to produce goods and services. The price of a product, however, and, thus, a business owners profit, is regulated and kept low by the principle of competition, another essential characteristic of the capitalist system.8 Without competition, the owners of the means of production could raise prices, and consumers, without alternatives, would have no choice but to pay exorbitant sums of money
7

Ebenstein, William, and Edwin Fogelman. Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Pg. 151 152. Print. 8 Ebenstein, William, and Edwin Fogelman. Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Pg. 150 151.Print.

Breen

to fulfill even their most basic needs. Competition works because of consumer sovereignty: the consumer has the freedom to choose which products to buy. Obviously, the consumer is always going to want to pay the lowest price possible for a product. If one business raises its prices dramatically while a similar business, offering comparable products or services, does not, it follows that the consumer will buy from the business with lower prices. If the first business does not lower prices, it will lose consumers and, thus, profits. Even when consumers do not buy the seemingly cheaper product, competition is still at work. For example, consumers may choose to buy from one particular brand over a similar brand because of brand loyalty. But, this brand loyalty must have an origin. Such an origin could include successful advertising techniques, the particular brand being known for the quality of its products, or even family loyalty, as when one person buys from a particular brand because his or her father did. In the latter example, though, the original purchaser of the brand had a reason, which hearkens back to one of the other possible origins. Successful advertising techniques are a result of the application of capitalism, not the theory itself, and thus will not be addressed. A brand known for its high quality products, however, still illustrates the principle of competition. As was stated before, between two comparable products, the consumer will buy the cheaper product. One approach to comparing products is price, and another is quality. If one brand is known for quality, then that brands products are not comparable to another brands lower-quality products. If this is the case, then a consumer buying the more expensive product of two choices is not choosing between two products that are comparable, if one is of a higher quality than the other. If both were of the same quality, then they would be equivalent. If they were equivalent, then the consumer would buy the

Breen

cheaper one. In capitalism, businesses must compete with each other for the consumers money, because the freedom to choose which products to buy and which products not to buy lies with the consumer. Likewise, the quality of a companys product s or services is also competitively regulated. Similar to prices, if the quality of a businesss products is poor, compared to another company that markets similar merchandise, the consumer will, more than likely, choose to buy from the business that offers higher quality products, unless the consumer chooses to buy the lower quality product because of its price. The quality of a companys products is also regulated. In this way, competition regulates the prices and quality of products available in the marketplace. All of these factors profit, competition, specialization of labor, supply and demand produce what Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.9 The Invisible Hand is what controls a free market and keeps it operating in a state of equilibrium. Adam Smith argued that if everybody acted purely out of self-interest, then the market would remain equalized. This is why, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith says, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.10 Through self-interest, every individual would attempt to maximize profits, which would be kept from skyrocketing according to the principle of competition. Specialization of labor would see to it that the quality of products are kept competitively high while supply and demand further control the price of the products. All of these factors work together through self-

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . Ed. Edwin Cannan. 5th ed. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd. 1904. Library of Economics and Liberty. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. <http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNCover.html>. 10 Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . Ed. Edwin Cannan. 5th ed. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd. 1904. Library of Economics and Liberty. Book I. Chapter II. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. <http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNCover.html>.

Breen

interest to regulate the market in a way that no individual attempts to do consciously. Thus, the market is seemingly controlled by an Invisible Hand.11 What has been set forth is the concise conception of capitalism as it will be referred to in further discussions. In no instance will the practical application of capitalism be considered or defended. The theory of capitalism is the focus, and I will now defend it. As stated in the introduction, the focus of this paper will be a defense of capitalism on the grounds that it necessitates the fulfillment of an individuals social responsibility by the individual. A discussion of freedom and responsibility, then, is necessary before the defense of capitalism can proceed. Traditionally, there has been a distinction made in freedom, producing two senses of the term. The first sense of freedom is a physical one. According to this sense, freedom is the ability to do what one wants to do. It simply means that ones action is not externally coerced or constrained. For example, if one desires to rise to a standing position from a sitting position in a chair, one can freely do so if one is not coerced to do so or constrained from doing so. If this is true, then one is free in the first sense of freedom. The second sense of freedom is not a physical freedom, but a more abstract freedom. Being free in the second sense of freedom entails the power to choose otherwise given the exact same conditions. This means that, if faced with a choice between option A and option B and one chooses A, theoretically, one would, under the exact same conditions, also be able to choose B. That is, nothing causes the individual to choose one option over the other except ones own will; even more, that the will, itself, is not caused by anything. If this is true, then one is free in the second sense of freedom.
11

Hull, David L. "What's Wrong with Invisible-Hand Explanations?" Philosophy of Science 64 (1997): S117-126. JSTOR. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/188395>.

Breen

Assuming that one is free, this means that one is also responsible. If one chooses to do something, and is free, then one must be responsible for ones choice and resulting actions. Freedom entails responsibility. This is why the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre claimed that human beings are condemned to freedom.12 By this, he means that we bear the full burden of our choices, that it is we and we alone who are responsible for our choices and resulting actions. This is because every choice one makes is not forced, that one could have chosen otherwise than one did. Responsibility and freedom are mutually implicatory. That is, to have one is to have the other. How is it possible, then, for these two concepts to be torn apart? Freedom and responsibility mutually imply one another. But, just as there are different senses of freedom, there is more than just one sense of responsibility, or, rather, more than one interpretation of responsibility. The interpretation is dependent on the individuals circumstances. In the broadest sense, the responsibility connected with freedom is metaphysical responsibility. One is responsible for ones actions, for ones choices, but is responsible to nobody in particular except oneself. Put another way, if an individual makes a choice and later regrets the choice, there is nobody to blame except the individual himself. Again, this is why Sartre claimed that humans are condemned to freedom. This responsibility certainly cannot be shouldered by another human being, as that other human being did not force the individual either to choose or act a certain way. What is important here is Sartres apparent blurring of the two senses of freedom. An individual may be in a certain situation that outwardly forces the individual to choose a certain way. But, according to Sartre, the
12

Sartre, Jean-Paul. The Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. Ed. Robert D. Cumming. New York: Random House, 1972. Print.

Breen

10

individual will always have the ability to choose otherwise. One human being can never force another human being to choose a certain way because human beings are completely free, and are always forced to make a choice. We are forced to choose because choosing not to choose is still a choice, and we cannot escape from making a choice. It seems that the only freedom we do not have is the freedom to choose not to choose, because this still results in a choice being made. For example: imagine two prisoners of war, tied side by side in a sitting position in two chairs. They hold information that another individual wishes to be revealed and who attempts to force the disclosure of the desired information through torture. The chairs in which the prisoners are seated are wired in such a way that the individual in charge is able to deliver short, painful bursts of electricity at will. The individual in charge asks each prisoner whether he will give up his particular information. At each refusal, the prisoner is shocked. After two such refusals and ensuing shocks, prisoner A confesses. After two more, prisoner B confesses. It is usually said that prisoner A could handle no more pain after two shocks and was forced to tell, while prisoner B could handle no more pain after four shocks. This is true, but only in the sense that each prisoner chose when they could not endure any more pain, which explains why the second prisoner was able to endure twice as many shocks as the first prisoner. It is entirely possible that each prisoner could have refused to confess until the electrical shocks killed him, but only because each would freely choose to do so. This is illustrative of not only how each human being is completely free, but also how each possesses metaphysical responsibility as a consequence. Nobody is responsible for the first prisoner professing defeat before the second prisoner but himself. The torturer cannot be blamed, nor can the second prisoner, nor can anybody else. This metaphysical responsibility rests with the

Breen

11

individual, and cannot be conferred on anybody else. Thus, no economic system is capable of robbing the individual of this metaphysical responsibility while leaving his freedom intact. There is also a second interpretation of responsibility. This responsibility becomes apparent in society. It will be referred to as social responsibility. Unlike metaphysical responsibility, which is abstract, social responsibility is more measureable, more definable, and this is understood with respect to the situation in which it arises. Metaphysical responsibility is present in all situations and all choices; social responsibility is present when an individual is functioning in a society. This society can take many different forms, ranging in size from a family unit or town community to a nation. Social responsibility is an individuals responsibili ty to promote the betterment of society. Like metaphysical responsibility, social responsibility is a consequence of freedom and belongs to the individual. Unlike metaphysical responsibility, however, social responsibility can be ignored. When this is done, it becomes social irresponsibility. If metaphysical responsibility were taken from the individual, the individual would not be responsible any longer for his choices and actions. On the other hand, if social responsibility were taken away from the individual, the result would be social irresponsibility, a deficient mode of metaphysical responsibility. This is undesirable, because if one is socially irresponsible, then one does not promote the betterment of the society, and the betterment of society is preferable over the worsening of society. Social responsibility leads to the betterment of society, and social irresponsibility leads to the worsening of society. If one is socially irresponsible, this does not mean one is not responsible socially and is able to dismiss ones metaphysical responsibility. Instead, one remains responsible for ones social irresponsibility. This is because social responsibility is dependent on metaphysical

Breen

12

responsibility. Metaphysical responsibility cannot be taken away from freedom and the individual. If the individual is socially irresponsible, then he is still free and responsible for his social irresponsibility, which is undesirable because it results in the worsening of society. This is exactly what communism allows for, and I will state how this occurs. The basis of the communist economic system is Karl Marxs credo: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.13 This means that, in a communist society, every individual will produce according to his particular skills and abilities, and will consume the products of others according to his own personal need. If a man is particularly talented at making shoes, then he will make shoes and give them to whoever needs them. Whenever he is in need of something, be it clothes, food, water, shelter, etc., he shall be given it, as well. Need can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, to include both basic necessities, such as air, food, water, clothing, and shelter; and unique, human needs, such as friendship, companionship, and even love. However, it is because of this credo, the basic principle of communism, that communism does not necessitate the fulfillment of an individuals social responsibility by the individual. Communism lacks the Invisible Hand, and it is because of this Invisible Hand that capitalism forces the individual to fulfill his social responsibility. Even more, capitalism and the Invisible Hand guarantee the betterment of society through the individuals self-interest and his satisfying of his social responsibility. This is because Marxs credo is not explicitly an exchange. That is, one does not produce according to his abilities in order to receive from the society according to his needs. It is not a hypothetical imperative, and there is

13

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Critique of the Gotha Programme. Peking: Foreign Languages, 1972. Marxists Internet Archive. 1999. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm>.

Breen

13

no necessary connection. Conceivably, then, one could produce nothing in a communistic society and still receive what one needs to survive. This does not occur in capitalism. In a capitalistic society, if one does nothing, then one receives nothing in return. In other words, communism allows for the possibility of an individuals consumption, their input, from society to be greater than their output to the society, what they produce for society. Capitalism does not allow this. What one receives from society will always be equivalent to what one produces and gives back to society. Because of this, the most important aspect about a free market, according to the economist Milton Friedman, that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit,14 is absent in communism. For example, suppose that a young, single strong male is capable of constructing quality houses at a rapid pace. Shelter is a necessity, one that this individual fulfills not for himself, but for others. But, because he is young and healthy, he does not need much to survive. In communism, this would result in his output to society being much greater than his consumption from society. He will build many houses that shelter many people, and all he will be given is what he needs to survive. In capitalism, doing the same thing, he will not only be able to obtain what he needs to survive, but also be able fulfill particular wants and desires. This is because capitalism necessitates that ones input and output be equivalent. In this way, capitalism necessitates and guarantees that one fulfills his social responsibility. Now suppose, in a communistic society, there is another individual that is not particularly skilled at doing anything. He has no special talents, abilities, or skills. Also suppose that this individual is unhealthy and needs a great deal of medical attention and hospitalization. These are his needs, and they need to be fulfilled in order for him to survive. In
14

Friedman, Milton. On Freedom and Free Markets. Interview. PBS. 01 Oct. 00. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html>

Breen

14

communism, they will be fulfilled by society, even though the individual is not able to produce much of anything, certainly nothing useful for the society. This means, then, that if this individual and the constructer of houses both lived in a communistic society, they would receive far different proportions of things than in capitalism. Furthermore, any individual in communism, according to a strict interpretation of Marxs credo, could choose to produce nothing, or produce far below his particular abilities. The young constructer of houses could choose to produce houses of a lower quality, or at a slower pace than his ability should allow for, and he will still get the same proportions of things from the society. Here, he is being socially irresponsible, and is responsible for this irresponsibility, even though the society, because it is communistic, does not force him to shoulder this responsibility. Through producing, an individual promotes the betterment of society, and in communism, production is not necessary for the individuals survival. In capitalism, production is necessary for t he individuals survival. This is how, in communism, one can be socially irresponsible, and, in capitalism, one is forced to fulfill ones social responsibility while acting in accordance with nothing but ones self-interest. It is important to note that the above individual, in need of considerable medical attention and hospitalization, does not receive what he needs in order to survive in a capitalistic society because he cannot produce anything to earn it. Instead, a charity may help him, or his relatives and friends may help pay for what he needs. The difference here is that the society is not forced to support him, as is the case in communism. If society is forced to support him, then other members of the society are the ones that must support him, even if they do not wish to. This is exploitation, but is also a consequence of the practical application

Breen

15

of capitalism, and will not be further discussed. Even though Karl Marx saw capitalism as necessary for communism to develop properly, he still pointed out several major flaws with capitalism, including the notions of exploitation and alienation. Marx thought that exploitation, the instrumental, harmful use of another for ones own benefit, was inherent in capitalism. According to him, there are three ways in which human beings are exploited in capitalism: the laborer is not fully compensated for his or her work, the laborer is forced to work, and the laborer does not own the product of his or her labor. While Freidrich Nietzsche accepted exploitation as a part of life, Marx did not, viewing it as something to be overcome. Marxs first form of exploitation in capitalism involves the lack of full compensation for the work done by the laborer. One can arrive at this conclusion through a practical example. If the cooper from previous discussions constructs a barrel and is able to sell it for $10.00, then the barrel can be said to be worth $10.00. But, if demand for the coopers barrels increases, the cooper may need to hire additional help to construct enough barrels to fulfill the increased demand. If he does this, then he will pay his employees less than the $10.00 per barrel that he received for barrels that he produced himself. He may pay his employees $5.00 per barrel and keep the remaining $5.00 as a profit. However much he pays his employees, it will not be the full $10.00 that he himself earned per barrel, because then he would receive no profit. It is here that the first form of exploitation, the lack of full compensation for work done by the laborer, is made apparent. The barrels are worth $10.00, but the coopers employees only receive $5.00 per barrel produced, with the cooper keeping the remaining $5.00 while not laboring any himself. Marx calls this exploitation. If this is a form of exploitation, then the cooper must use his employees in a harmful, instrumental way for his

Breen

16

own end. Marx argues that the employees deserve the full compensation of their work, the full $10.00, and anything less is less than they deserve. There are two important aspects to consider in Marxs argument, namely that the employer, the cooper, is taking advantage of his employees and that his employees are not benefiting, and that the employer and his employees each deserve an equal amount of compensation. If neither of these is true, then this is not exploitation. The coopers employees, however, do seem to benefit. They are employed and receive compensation for their work, and this compensation is equal to their labor. This is because the cooper producing barrels by himself at $10.00 per barrel and his employees producing barrels for him at $5.00 per barrel are not comparable positions. Each produces barrels, and each may produce barrels of the same quality. The difference lies in the cooper, as an employer, promoting the betterment of society more than his employees do working for him. Thus, the cooper has a greater degree of social responsibility than his employees do. The employees merely go to work, do their job, receive a paycheck, and return home. The cooper, meanwhile, hires employees, pays them wages, and, in general, owns and runs a company that produces products. It is because of this greater contribution to society that the cooper appears not to fully compensate his employees for their work, when, in fact, he does. Social responsibility was shown to be dependent on metaphysical responsibility, both implied by freedom, with social irresponsibility being a deficient mode of metaphysical responsibility. Social responsibility is desirable over social irresponsibility because it promotes the betterment of society, which is inherently better than the worsening of society. Capitalism is preferable to communism because it necessitates the fulfillment of social responsibility by

Breen

17

the individual, while communism allows for the possibility of social irresponsibility.

Breen

18

Works Cited 1. Dowd, Douglas Fitzgerald. Capitalism and Its Economics: A Critical History. London: Pluto, 2000. Print. 2. Ebenstein, William, and Edwin, Fogelman. Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Print. 3. Friedman, Milton. On Freedom and Free Markets. Interview. PBS. 01 Oct. 00. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman. html> 4. Hull, David L. "What's Wrong with Invisible-Hand Explanations?" Philosophy of Science 64 (1997): S117-S126. JSTOR. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/188395>. 5. Leone, Bruno. Capitalism: Opposing Viewpoints. St. Paul, Minn.: Greenhaven, 1986. Print. 6. Leone, Bruno. Communism: Opposing Viewpoints. St. Paul, Minn.: Greenhaven, 1986. Print. 7. Leone, Bruno. Socialism: Opposing Viewpoints. St. Paul, Minn.: Greenhaven, 1986. Print. 8. Marx, Karl, and Eugene Kamenka. The Portable Karl Marx. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1983. Print. 9. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Critique of the Gotha Programme. Peking: Foreign Languages, 1972. Marxists Internet Archive. 1999. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm>.

Breen

19

10. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. London: Routledge, 2006. Print. 11. Sartre, Jean-Paul. The Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. Ed. Robert D. Cumming. New York: Random House, 1972. Print. 12. Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Ed. Edwin Cannan. 5th ed. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd. 1904. Library of Economics and Liberty. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. <http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNCover.html>. 13. Stumpf, Samuel Enoch, and James Fieser. Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print