Capitalism, Socialism, & Communism

Before we were even given the name of this lesson, we had to do an activity. Everyone was given two Hershey's kisses, with the exception of two kids, who each got eight. We then all had to play "rock, paper, scissors" (no best two out of three) and if we lost, we had to give the person who beat us one Hershey's kiss. When someone ran out of candy, they had to go sit down. We were invited up to the board to comment on the activity. While a lot of the comments were calling people out on cheating (mainly because the person who lost was mad), some people said the game was unfair because two people started out with more than everyone else. This all related back to Karl Marx's theory of capitalism. Next, everyone's candy was repossessed and then redistributed so everyone was back to only two pieces of candy. This was supposed to represent the idea of socialism. Then we were asked if we wanted to play again, but if we lost that was the end of the line and we could not get any more candy. Most people said no because they didn't want the possibility of losing all of their candy again. This was supposed to show communism because everyone agreed to keep the candy they had, and therefore there was no need for teacher intervention because a classless society had been achieved.
Karl Marx's theory of communism was a process. It started with capitalism, giving everyone private ownership of industry and freedom of competition, but it would result in unequal economic classes and start a workers' revolt. Therefore, the people would transition to socialism to make things more fair. This meant there would be government ownership of industry to achieve the goal of a classless society and economic equality. Marx believed people wouldn't stand for divisions between rich and poor anymore, so they would resort to violence to get to communism. A classless society would be achieved and there would be no need for a government. Adam Smith (author of The Wealth of Nations), on the other hand, believed in the "invisible hand". He thought there should be no government intervention and that the people should be left alone and to let the "invisible hand" do all the work.
I think Smith's theory is better and more effective. People would have to learn to work things out themselves, but it would make them figure out what worked and what didn't. However, I don't think either theory is a great idea because of the flaws and the lack of government to step in when needed. The alternative would be capitalism, because people would still have freedom of competition and while there would still be social classes, the poor did have a chance to possibly make it to the top.