Poor is a Problem (With Solutions)

The most recent big event in history class was learning about Marxism with Hershey’s kisses. First, Mrs. Gallagher distributed the chocolates so that most kids had three candies and two kids had ten. Then we were informed we must play rock paper scissors, and the prize for winning was taking a kiss from whomever you beat. This was Capitalism, and capitalism did not treat me well. I was out and sitting down with no candy after just three games. Ten-holders could afford to lose a couple rounds, but I was not one of them. Next, in following with Marxism, we switched to Socialism. Everyone who had more than three kisses had to give back their winnings so that everyone started with an even three. This time we had a choice, to play or not to play rock paper scissors. I chose not to play because last time had ended so poorly, frankly I was happy I had candy any at all. Still, we were not allowed to eat, but that did not stop Mrs. Gallagher from eating a few in front of us, which truthfully, was painful to watch because the chocolate looked really good. The last step in Marxism was Communism. Everyone was back to having three and no one had a chance to increase their number, but we were finally allowed to eat. These three stages let us experience Marxism and the emotions the wealthy and the poor might feel with these changes.

www.derobertisjewelers.com/collections.php?collectionID=8

Then, we learned about another system, Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. Both Karl Marx's Marxism and The Invisible Hand had a way to help the poor become more stable economically. In Adam Smith’s system, the government would step back from the economy and let it do its own thing, this way Smith figured that the economy would thrive with businesses competing with each other to create the best product for the least amount of money. This healthy competition would allow the poor to have a wider range of things they could afford, which would make the poor are better off.  In the first step of Marxism, Capitalism, the poor can theoretically change their class, but they do still tend to stay poor. Moving on to Socialism, everyone starts out with an even amount, but poor can still exist if they trade unwisely. It is the third step, Communism, which makes being poor obsolete. There are no more poor people because everyone starts with the same amount and everyone continues with the same amount of money and resources.

Before the lesson, I had heard of Marxism before. Even so, I think Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand is the better approach to help the poor because it seems more realistic. To have no government at all is an incomprehensible idea to me, and that is part of Communism. Having a government, but one that does not control the economy is easier for me to grasp. The only downside I see to the Invisible Hand, and the downside pointed out in the video, is it might take a long time before the economy is at a place where it is capable of competing successfully.