In class we did a representation of how over time Capitalism became communism. We tried to show this using starbursts. Most of the kids in the class got three starbursts, but some people got ten. We played rock, paper, scissors to bet for candy. There were no rules in this game, so students lied, cheated, and stole. That was a representation of capitalism because the people with ten pieces of candy were superior to those with less. The people who had more candy were chosen randomly, so it was like the wealthy people of the time were born into their wealth. They did not work for their money. At the end of the experiment the teacher collected and redistributed the candy equally. That was a representation of socialism. Socialism was the step in between capitalism and communism. It was when the government equally redistributes the wealth to all the people. The nobles and artisans did not like that because they lost all their wealth, but the common folk were happy because they got some of the wealth too. Likewise, the people who started with ten pieces of candy were not happy because they lost most of theirs. The people who started with three were happy because during the rock, paper, scissors a lot of people lost all their candy. The redistribution made it so these people got some too. As a class we made it as close to communism as it gets because everyone was happy, just having some candy. The reason true communism (which means having no government) has never happened is because there is always some greedy person who wants to keep playing rock, paper, scissors. This experiment was very fun because you got to eat candy at the end, but at times it was frustrating because although I started with three pieces of candy, I ended with seven pieces. I wanted I keep my seven pieces, but instead I had to give it up, and end with three pieces like everybody else.
I did not take part in the Socratic Seminar, but I observed the people who did. The people in the socratic seemed most focused on the fact that someone was always unhappy, no matter what type of government we had. For example, Catherine said that, “communism can never be reached because there will always be one greedy person”. Austin also brought up another interesting point, that “there was never any peace because every person was only working for themselves”. In our class there did not seem to be many alliances. Going back I would definitely align with some people because it would have been good for both of us. Also, that way you have one less person to worry about stealing from you.
Marx had a theory that the poor would help themselves. He thought if they changed the government from capitalism to socialism to eventually communism, that the poor would become equal with the nobles. Although his plan sounded good, it did not succeed. With capitalism the poor people were unhappy, so when the government redistributes the wealth the poor people were happy. This is good, but the nobles are happy with capitalism, so when the government redistributes the wealth the nobles were unhappy because they are no longer rich. The government stayed with socialism for a little while, but there was no drive to succeed, when no matter what you are going to be paid. With socialism why not have an easy job because you are paid the same as if you are the head or a major company.
Smith had a theory about an invisible hand, that would benefit the poor. His theory was that the government would stay out of all business affairs. That way the people could work it out on their own. The benefits of this were that the businesses could compete. When the businesses compete, the prices are lower. This means that the poorer people could afford the goods they wanted. The problem with this was that the bigger companies could afford to charge less than the smaller companies. When buying a product a buyer looks most at price, not quality. That was why although the smaller business would be much better quality, they were more expensive. Smith’s theory of an invisible hand brings us right back to capitalism. One business was superior to all the other smaller businesses. Smith thought that was okay because he was against communism, but many people opposed his ideas.
In my opinion Smith’s theory was much better than Marx’s. Marx’s theory was too unrealistic to ever be achieved. Smith’s theory although never fully achieved got much closer the a classes society than Marx’s. I like the fact that businesses could compete because it is people’s natural instinct to have a drive to compete with others. If I was to change our government, I would reintroduce the invisible hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment