No More Chocolate

Today in class we played rock paper scissors. But it was not as simple as it sounds. Everyone started off with two Hersey kisses, but two kids in the class started off with eight. We all stood up and faced each other in rock paper scissors and who ever won the round got a Hersey kiss from the loser. With this freedom of competition some won and some lost which is a lot like capitalism. For me this game lasted a very short time, considering that I lost the first two rounds so I was disqualified and sat down chocolate-less and watched everyone else play. The two kids in my class who started off with 8 Hersey kisses naturally lasted the longest in the game and ended with the most amount of kisses. The game seemed fun in the beginning but then it got really frustrating.  I still wanted my two Hersey kisses back. I got really jealous watching the people who started out with more kisses keep on winning. I experienced frustration similar to the poor people's frustration in capitalism. Some kids that started off with two made their way up the ranks and collected more chocolate by the end. Watching that was frustrating too because I wanted to keep playing and I wanted more chocolate but I had to sit and watch everyone else become richer in chocolaty goods. Then the teacher collected all of the chocolate and redistributed it equally, like socialism. After that we all chose not to play anymore and each keeps two chocolates and no longer needed the teachers’ supervision, like communism. In class we discussed the relationship between this activity and capitalism, socialism, and communism. We discussed Marx's theory of communism and Smith's theory of the invisible hand. 

Karl Marx
 source - http://sidvents.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/carl-marx.jpg?w=600

Karl Marx wanted to help the poor and had a theory on how the government would change and eventually help the poor prosper with communism. Marx's theory of communism first starts with capitalism. Private owners of industries and freedom of competition would results in unequal economic classes so there would be a class struggle and the lower class workers would revolt. This is what leads to Socialism next in Marx's theory, the government owns industries and the goal is to bring economic equality and aim a classes society. Marx said that the government would no longer be needed because people would be more willing to share which would create Communism. Communism is the goal of a classes society with no government needed and having everyone equal, which Marx thinks is the best way to help the poor. Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations thinks differently. Smith thinks that the best way to help the poor is by the use of the invisible hand in capitalism. The invisible hand is when people buy and sell on their own and have competitions between businesses, which means the harder you work, potentially the more money you make. Unlike Communism, with the invisible hand you do not need to share your wealth. Smith said that with the invisible hand the government would not need to regulate the economy because the economy would regulate itself. This is because people who work are also consumers and will consume and buy things. As you can see Marx and Smith had a very different outlook, but both had the same goal in mind; to help the poor.





In my opinion Smiths' is the best theory. The invisible hand would work better than communism. In communism if everyone is equal and gets paid the same amount then there is no real motivation to work harder. If there is no motivation and no one works harder and tries to learn more then the society would go downhill. With some competition between businesses people are determined to work and do research to make their product better. That way there will be advancements in technology and overall it is close to a fair playing field; the harder you work the more money you earn.