Discussion Starter: Comparing Smith and Plato in their conceptions of the division of labor

Plato and Aristotle also thought of something like the ‘division of labor’ as a central way of describing society. How does Smith’s version of it compare?

In Republic, Plato outlines a society in which a strong division of labor is crucial to its sustainability. Plato’s conception of the city-state is made up of different tiers, each tier constituting a different group of citizens who maintain a specific function. For example, the producers provide the city with food, textiles, and material goods; the auxiliaries and guardians defend the city-state; and the philosopher-king rules over it. Plato argues that each person has different natural talents, or natural aptitudes, that suit that person to one of the tiers in his society. A producer has a natural aptitude for craft or farming, while the philosopher-king showed high levels of intellect and reasoning. In order to convince each person that their place in the hierarchy of the polis is accurate, Plato uses the “myth of the metals”.

 Aristotle is similar to Plato in that he also believed each person had a natural aptitude for one skill over another, and that people should be treated and educated based on that capacity. However, Aristotle also focuses on the family as a basic model for society, demonstrating how the father (head of the household) represents the role of the city authorities.

In Book I of Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith deviates from this idea. Smith does not describe the benefits of the division of labor in such a way, but instead takes a more utilitarian approach. While Plato argues that his societal structure is the most efficient way of dividing labor, it’s likely that the producers would not be as content in their positions as the philosopher-king. Smith, on the other hand, makes the case that division of labor is beneficial to everyone. In his example of the pin factory, he mentions that while a single man can only make a couple of pins at most per day, an assembly-line of men each specializing in one part are able to make quite a large number. In this case, each man benefits from the shared labor—they each make a larger profit, and only need to focus a singular task. Smith also makes the point later on in the text that men are not divided so much by natural talent, but instead by cultivation of their strengths through opportunity and education. Here, he diverges directly from Plato and Aristotle, in that he does not consider natural aptitude to be a determining factor in someone’s career or intellectual capacity.

I found Smith particularly interesting because of the parts of the division of labor—and those systems—that he decides not to discuss. For example, when discussing the pin-making factory, his description almost conveys the idea of a workers’ collective. There does not seem to be someone in charge, nor does it seem that anyone is making more money than anyone else. And yet, because Smith’s model is inherently capitalist, it would not be able to exist without a functioning, and therefore oppressive, hierarchy. In Book II, Smith argues that man’s propensity to exchange and barter is essential to the division of labor. Instead of each man having to be their own butcher, baker, and farmer, trade creates the conditions for specialization. However, Smith describes the process of exchange as though each person starts on the same foot; one person starts by making a bow and arrow, another builds shelter. Smith uses these romanticized, “indigenous” conceptions of human nature in order to make his point, but conveniently maneuvers out of discussing the consequences of men enslaving and manipulating others for their own gain once these monetary and bartering systems have been established. Smith’s model simplifies the capitalist system by erasing its negative implications, thus conveying the evolution of man from bartering bows and arrows for food to the creation of an assembly-line as an empirical process where each person has the same potential.