This paper will analyze philosophers we have read this year, and what flaws they may find in a working Communist system. I will analyze three philosophers and their critiques: Adam Smith, Aristotle (briefly), Plato, and John Locke. Adam Smith, the father of economics and major proponent of the capitalist system, championed the idea of a free market economy where individuals pursue their own self interest which in turn benefits society as a whole. Smith advocates for market forces and competition as the main drivers of the economy, this contrasts the centralized economic plan of communism. He argues that the most efficient allocation of resources comes from the invisible hand of the market, responding to the demands and preferences of consumers. Collective control over production and distribution neglects a profit motive for efficient resource …show more content…
However, in this hypothetical future the essence of an individual will rely solely on their moral character and their cultivated personality rather than their usefulness in production or their accumulation of resources, which have been the primary measures of peoples’ “individuality” throughout most of history. In summary, the hierarchical nature of Plato’s Kallipolis clashes with the classless ideal of Marx’s communism, but many of Plato’s aims, such as alignment with the form of the good and benefit of the collective over the individual, become easier to achieve in a future where Marx’s ideas are actualized. Lastly, I would like to examine the philosophy of John Locke, particularly his theories on property and individual rights. I believe Locke would scrutinize the feasibility of a communist system on the basis that it disregards people’s natural right to property. In his “Second Treatise of Government” Locke asserts that individuals have the natural right to acquire and possess property through their labor, where what is common can become private once labor is