Will Rogers once stated, “Communism is like prohibition; it’s a good idea but it won’t work.” Since it’s inception in mid 1800’s, Communism has been an idea that has had its ups and downs. Based on the idea of eliminating class antagonism, Communism is a synthesis of two separate entities. In a class system there exist owners and workers. Owners control the majority of the wealth and means of production. These persons were referred to as the bourgeoisie where as the workers, who only earned a small wage, were known as the proletariat. These two units can be seen as a thesis and antithesis, and by combining these two a synthesis, or in this case Communism, was created.
Communism is against the ownership of private property. This alone is debatable enough for an entire paper. Privacy and private property is a staple of Capitalism and in our society here in the United States, relatively impossible to relinquish. Philosopher Peter Singer believes that if we had marginal utility and everyone was seen as even, our world would be much better off; just as Communism would suggest. However, I provide and whole-heartedly support the opinion of philosopher John Arthur. Arthur believes we have a right to things we earn.
American society’s competitiveness is evident in many aspects of everyday life here in the U.S. Professional sports always have a large draw of fans and spectators, not to mention college and high school athletics as well. We as Americans love the thrill of competitions and even “the American dream” is based upon competition. We desire to be the best, to be our own boss, and garner a well-paying job. Often U.S. citizens see those in well-paying positions and the most educated as the most successful. American markets are always competitive on top of it all.
In class, several students arguing for the Communist side felt that our society was too competitive and that with Communism it would get rid of this competition. However, I beg to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document