In history class everyone participated in a starburst experiment. Most students received three starbursts, however, occasionally someone would get ten. After, we all went around playing rock paper scissors; winner receives a piece of the losers candy. Our teacher supervised, and told us to play fairly and only take candy when winning a game. The rules were not enforced much, and it was chaos. People ended up pushing, stealing, fighting, and begging. Since no one was enforcing the set rules, no one was following them; people did whatever they could to get more candy. Eventually, we all complained about the unfairness, and our teacher collected all of the candy, then redistributed it evenly, so this time everyone started with three. People who worked hard for lots of candy were frustrated, and people who struggled to even get one piece were satisfied.
It seems strange that one might contribute to this activity in an honors history class, however, the experiment was all a metaphor for capitalism and socialism. The first part of the starburst experiment was a representation of capitalism. Every student started with their own amount, had the freedom to choose who they played with and how often,faced struggle, and argued about fairness. These all show the features of capitalism: Private ownership of industry with inequality, freedom of competition, and unequal social classes. The second half of the experiment; when the teacher collects the candy and redistributes the it, represents socialism. The teacher collecting the candy symbolizes the government's control over the industry, the redistribution shows the goal of economic equality, and the aim for a classless society is shown by each student ending with an equal amount of candy.
The experiment helped us learn about economic theories created by Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Marx believed that capitalism would never work, and that most people would not accept greatly divided social classes. He believed that people would naturally do whatever it took to receive equal distribution and no social classes, and eventually no government would be needed at all. He believed economy would naturally go from capitalism to socialism, to communism. Smith’s theory also aims to benefit the poor, just in a different way. Smith believed in “The Invisible Hand.” This theory is the idea that the government would let its people control their own market, even though they would still be considered capitalist, and eventually competition would cause prices to lower and even out.
In my opinion, neither of these two solutions could ever work. Although we have of course faced many economic struggles with our capitalist country, I feel that our methods are the best that they can ever be. Marx’s theory is unrealistic, because there would always be too many greedy people in the world to want to give up their own wealth to help the unfortunate. This was outlined when people in our class who had worked hard for ten starbursts had to be demoted to three. They were all very angry with this decision, and they were right that it wasn't fair to them. People doing whatever they can to reach classlessness just isn't something that could ever happen after we have grown so accustomed to luxuries. Communism and socialism wouldn't work. “The Invisible Hand” theory created by Adam Smith also isn't a realistic idea. People would never be able to get along well enough to control their own economy and let prices even out. We need government to keep us in line and following rules; rules that lead us to economic success. Capitalism has its faults, but we need competition in order to be fair. Everyone receiving equal pay isn't fair when some work harder than others, and people are too aware of this to ever make socialism or communism work. Even capitalism with "The Invisible Hand" would never work, because too much competition would cause arguing, and no government intervention would lead to chaos.
In class we had a Socratic seminar about capitalism, socialism, communism, Marx, Smith and our experiment. We discussed the issues of Marx and smith's economic theories and the pros and cons of socialism communism and capitalism. One of my classmates seemed to agree with me that capitalism is our best option, and said that hard-workers should not have to be paid the same as a lazy person. Some people are poor because of their own work ethic and occupation. Another classmate explained how socialism takes away the natural right to want to succeed. Communism and socialism seem to conflict with human nature. We need competition to better our world, and we need people to always strive for excellence. Another student suggested that we combine socialism and capitalism because capitalism is too restricted and socialism is too free. I disagree with this; I believe that capitalism goes with human nature and we need rules to follow as well as competition too keep us fair and in line. Even "The Invisible Hand", which is capitalism with a touch of socialistic style, would be disastrous, because people would never be able to get along. Capitalism seems to be the only balanced form of competition, and socialism and communism could take away competition and order.
Our experiments and discussions were a great way to learn about what these economic systems were like, and guided us to form our own opinions and preferences on them. I would recommend doing similar exercises in any history class interested in analyzing economic structures.
No comments:
Post a Comment