Capitalism, Socailism, or Communism?

In history class, we played a game to show how capitalism, communism and socialism worked. At the start of class, the teacher handed out starburst to each of the students. Some people got 2 or 3 starburst and others got more. In Capitalism, this represents private ownership of industry with inequality. Each student started with their own candy and some got more than others. As class was getting started, the teacher told the class that we would be able to gain to lose candy by playing a game of rock, paper, scissors with other students in the class. This is an example of freedom of competition. We were able to decide who to play with and how many candies we were going to give away or gain. Most people got up and started to play the game. The "rich" people in class were worried about losing their candy, and when they lost a lot of candy, they stopped playing. The "poor" people in the class wanted to become part of the rich class. They were not afraid to play the game and win candy. They did not want to lose all their candy, so they were careful about playing. But, after they lost all their candy, they were eliminated from the game. After the game was finished, the class took a poll on who lost candy and who won candy. Most people lost candy, but some people gained candy. This is an example of results in unequal economic classes in Capitalism. The people who win would be known as the bourgeoisie. The people who lost would be known as the proletariat. While the game was being played, people were complaining about the game. Some said it was not fair, and others complained about playing the game in general. This would be known as class struggle in Capitalism. People were arguing during the game about fairness, and the people who were eliminated were "cheating" to try to find a way to get back into the game. This would be known as workers' revolt in Capitalism. People tried to go against the rules and fight about them. Once everyone said their complaints at the end of the game, the teacher collected all the candy. In Socialism, this would be classified as government ownership of industry. Once the candy was collected, everyone in class was given the same amount of candy, which is the goal to bring economic equality in Socialism. Now that each student had the same amount of candy, socialists would call that the aim for a classless society. Although the game ran smoothly, some people argued during it.  When the students refused to play and wanted to keep their candy, it was an example of communism. In communism, this would be known as the achieved go of a classless society. Also, an example of communism was shown when the teacher backed off from the game and did not supervise the candy distribution. This is known as no government needed in Communism. I enjoyed this game, and I thought it was a clever way to show how communism, socialism, and capitalism worked. I was frustrated during the game since I was not one of the rich people during the game. I was worried about playing the game and losing all my candy, but I wanted to play because I wanted more candy. Being rich would have been easier because I would not have had to worry about getting more candy if I started with a lot. You needed luck to get more candy in this game rather than skill. Overall, I enjoyed playing the game and enjoyed getting starburst at the end of the game.

Marx says that eventually socialism would lead to communism. This means that the government would not be needed and the people would govern themselves. Also, that the money in the economic system would be equal between everyone because it is equally distributed. The poor are helped in this system because everyone is equal. Everyone in the system has the same amount of money since the government evenly distributes if. On the other hand, Smith said that the "invisible hand" would be how the government worked. The invisible hand says that the government is only affective in public works. It stays out of business and lets the people figure it out. The poor are helped in this system because the market creates job openings. This makes it easier for a poor man to find a job and make money. Also, the low prices of things allow a man with less money to buy what they need. They do not have to worry about buying things if they have a job that makes them money and low prices which allow them to buy things with that money.

In my opinion, Smith's theory is the best. I believe that the poor are benefited the most in this system, and more opportunities are opened for them. The poor still has to work for their money, rather than the government just handing it to them. I think that if you want to have money then you must work for it. It feels better knowing that the things you have are products of hard work rather than just sitting there and having the products being handed to you. For now, I do not know if there is a third alternative. Eventually, another idea of how to help the poor may be introduced.