Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism

In class, we participated in an activity to show how capitalism and communism works. We were given Starbursts at the beginning of class. Some students were given three and others were given ten. As we sat down, our teacher told us these Starbursts represented the money we were provided with at birth, and that the people with ten were wealthy and the people with three were poor. There were very few people with ten, and a lot with three, just like there are many poor people and not many rich people. We were then told to play rock/paper/scissors with other students in the class, and that this represented trading and commerce. If you won the game, you got a Starburst, but if you lost you had to give one up. After a while of constant losses, most of the class had zero candies left, while some had upwards of twelve. We sat down to inspect our loot (or lack of it), when the teacher collected all of the candy. Many people were disappointed, but I, having no candy, was not. The teacher then distributed an even three pieces to every person, and explained that this represented a communist society, where everyone got equal rations. We then had a few minutes to play rock/paper/scissors again if we wanted. In the end, everyone sat down and ate their candy. Many students thought the activity was frustrating, particularly the ones that started off with ten when they walked through the door. Losing Starbursts was not a pleasant feeling, but getting the same amount as everyone else in the end felt good. This eventual equality is intended to represent Karl Marx's idea of communism, where everybody has the same.


Karl Marx's idea of communism is very popular, even today. Countries like Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and China have all used his ideas in the creation of their government. However, this is a contradiction to the true definition of communism, where no government is even present. Marx believed that the general population would regulate their own economy. In this economy, everyone would get the same share of goods, and so the poor and the wealthy would become equals. This idea is far-fetched for obvious reasons, but it was an idea nonetheless. Adam Smith attempted to fix this problem by incorporating the idea of an invisible hand. He wanted a government to be present, but did not want it to have a direct and apparent influence on the economy. Thus the "invisible hand" idea was created, meaning that the economy was left to itself, and individuals can make a profit by themselves. The poor would benefit because the economy was completely controlled by the individual, and the poor could help themselves. People naturally have competition in them, and this is why the invisible hand works. People will always try to be better than everybody else, and this perpetuates the economy.

I believe that there is no one right or wrong answer. Each of these different ideas have their ups and downs, but in the end no one is the better one. Most of these ideas are based on the good qualities of humans, which can sometimes be hard to come by. No society is perfect, and even if they were there is a finite amount of goods that you can earn. As one gets wealthier, others must get relatively poorer. Each idea has a different draw for different people, but as not all people are the same not every idea is equally well liked. Personally, I like the idea of the invisible hand, because working hard gets you the wealth you deserve.