Chocolate Communism

We entered class last week, the room smelling of chocolate. When we got to our seats we were told not to eat the Hershey's kisses we were given. It seemed everyone was given two, until we noticed that one or two students were given eight chocolates. Upset by the unfairness of this situation, we were given the chance to battle our classmates for their candies in the most complicated battle of wits: Rock Paper Scissors. Each match was for a single Hershey's kiss. Many students went out quickly. I survived for many matches, but still end with less than I started with. The lucky few who started with more chocolate ended with more. Only one person who began with two chocolates ended with more than five. We decided a fair solution would be to redistribute the chocolate evenly, and everyone got three. The two-chocolate students were happy; the ones with more were not. We then voted on whether to eat our chocolate or take it back to Rock Paper Scissors. Everyone chose to eat theirs. While this activity was fun, it was frustrating to lose all my chocolates! So what the heck does this have to do with history?
Our experiences with the Hershey's kiss economy can be applied to the dynamic between rich and poor after the industrial revolution. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both made theories about helping about the poor through different economic systems. Marx's theory of communism described how the poor would help themselves. His theory showed the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism. In capitalism, industry is owned privately and there is freedom of competition, and this results in unequal economic classes. Through a workers revolt, this turns into socialism. In a socialist society, the government owns the industry, and it's goal is to create a equal classes, and ultimately no classes. This becomes communism, and the goal of economic equality is achieved, and no government is necessary. A more detailed description of Marx's theory of communism can be found here. Doesn't that sound all fine and dandy? Before Marx wrote his theory, Adam Smith wrote about what he called the invisible hand. He believed that the best economy was one that guided itself. He describes his theory as an invisible hand. The invisible hand pushed economy in the direction of success through the fact that people want to buy high quality goods for low prices. The economy slowly becomes better and better, and good businesses succeed. This is capitalism. but without government control. Smith believed that the economy functions best without a government. This system would benefit the poor by allowing them to succeed, and find the best businesses to buy from. It also pleases the rich because their money is not distributed.
In my opinion, capitalism is the best solution our of the three, however, all of them have drawbacks. Communism seems to be a great idea, but in reality, it leaves the poor poor, and the rich slightly less rich. Capitalism allows people to grow their own business and buy high quality goods at low prices. However, it isn't perfect, as there are still poor people in America. It is better than Communism, which just doesn't work. It is best for government to allow economy to grow on it's own. Neither method is a true solution, but I certainly cannot come up with a better one.