Student Paper F992-8
Fall 1999, Section I
Reviewer Comments

 

Two Cars in the Desert

 

Although it now appears that pluralism won out over hyper-rationalism, both systems had individual strengths and weaknesses. Each system operates quite differently with respect to the government and the economy. The pluralist, or capitalist, system involves less government, while the hyper-rationalist, or socialist, system depends on a great amount of government. While the capitalists focus on the individual, the socialists focus on the group. The pioneers of each system believed that they had found the perfect system. Like any new idea though, they had to be tested, and tested they were.

 

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, was one of the pioneers of capitalism. He felt that free trade and very limited government intervention would be the key to success.1 The economy should be based entirely on the idea of supply and demand. This way, the producers would produce what was needed for the people, and conversely, the people would get what they needed from the producers. It was not the government's place to control the economy, for it would only hold it back, and limit innovation. Using the ideas of supply and demand, the amount of wealth would grow. Politically, Smith and his fellow Classical Liberals believed in active citizenship. The people being governed should have the right to decide for themselves what they wanted.

 

At the other end of the scale were Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. These two gentlemen believed in a socialist system. They believed that a big, powerful government was good politically, and should control the economy.2 A powerful government would ensure that all are taken care of, and that no one is taken advantage of. Everyone would work similar amounts of time and get paid similar wages, so there will be no wanting amongst the people. Politically, one would give up nearly every right, but he would be taken care of, so there would be no need for a political voice. The government would also control the economy. It would decide how much to produce of what items, and for what price they would be sold at. With this system in place, everyone would receive what they needed at a fair price, economically and politically.

 

After World War II socialist governments sprang up all over Eastern Europe, and were, for a while, quite successful. By transforming countries from mainly agrarian societies into industrial societies, there was a tremendous rise in the quality of life. The government saw that jobs were created, that housing was available for all, and that they had health care, among other things. What was proposed and acted on seemed almost idealistic. The people in Eastern Europe had received so much, but now, with the knowledge of their previous gain, they wanted even more. Unfortunately, the socialist system had its limits. The government was unable to sustain a life of luxury for all. At the same time, their economy, which was not based on supply and demand, but on fixed prices and quantities, was failing. The people saw what was happening and wanted reform. Eastern Europe was generally pleased with what socialism had done for them, and they just wanted reform. The government, though, did not know how to deal with this problem, they were scared. The powerful government used force to again suppress this uprising. In the next forty years, Eastern Europe would break almost entirely free of a socialist system that had failed to stay calm.

 

Capitalist societies were set up and run quite differently. Politically, there was a great amount of freedom. Citizens were free to do so many things that were unheard of in socialism. They were able to voice their concerns, which let the government know what needed to be done. Unfortunately, these rights can be taken too far and can result in violence and disorder. In capitalism, the economy is based on supply and demand. People choose what they want to produce by what is needed. People work for wages that differ by the type of job, hours worked, and merit. This gives workers an incentive to strive for better things, to work hard and thus benefit society. Workers produce more so that they can receive more, done across the board, this can lift the entire society. Capitalism does, though, have its drawbacks. Work is not guaranteed for all, likewise with good pay, housing, and health care. There will be those underprivileged who will suffer in poverty. The government will assist them, but will not necessarily see to it that they are well off. It has appeared, though, that the capitalist form of government is working rather well. It is possible to move up on the social and financial ladder, so the poor are working hard, striving to achieve greater things. The economy based on supply and demand is producing what people need, at prices most people are willing to pay and companies are receiving a reasonable profit. The increase of wealth is then circulated back into the economy and the cycle continues, and more people rise up.

 

Socialism and capitalism are two forms of government with very different ideologies. They both have their merits, while they both have their weaknesses. As it is now, capitalism seems to have won out over socialism. Socialism, though is still alive, and if reformed like it was once proposed, it may become successful and favored again. Looking at the pros and cons of each system, it is possible that the ideal system is a combination of each. Perhaps in an attempt to better each type of system, we will see them coming closer and closer. Now, though, it appears as if socialism and capitalism can be described as two cars racing in the desert heat. The socialist car, in a race to win, speeds across the desert at full speed, never stopping. By taking this action, the engine will overheat, and the car will be stranded. The capitalist car, on the other hand, travels slowly, taking scheduled stops to cool the engine. The capitalist car reaches the goal, while the socialist car is stranded in the desert, awaiting assistance.

 

 

1 Modern History Sourcebook, "Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776," http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmith-summary.html (Dec. 2, 1999).

 

2 The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Section 3, http://www.rnarxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/com-man/ch03.htm (Nov. 20, 1999).