No two intellectuals appear to be further apart than Adam Smith, the spiritual founder of capita l ism, and Karl Marx, the principal architect of communism. Yet if we read the following two excerpts from their most influential treatises, they appear to be in agreement on at least one point: the propensity of workers to unite in a common cause and eventually become violent as a result.
Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen, who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour . Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of pr o visions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamor, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious. The collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they join together in order to keep up the rate of wages they form permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts.
Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.

Question

1. Looking back from a historical perspective, were Marx and Smith correct in their predictions that unionization leads to violence? Is such violence ever justifiable from a moral perspective? Why or why not?
2. If these two philosophers are convinced that unionization leads to violence, at what point do you suppose they part company? Explain.
3. Do the words of Smith and Marx seem to call for a Keynesian or an Austrian interpretation of violence? Explain.
4. Which of the two theories about human nature, that of Hobbes or that of Rousseau, do you believe? Explain.
5. Do the activities of the governments of Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan reflect Hobbes or Rousseau? Smith or Marx? Explain. What about the public employees in each state? Do their activities reflect Hobbes or Rousseau? Smith or Marx? Explain.