Many well-meaning people believe they know which social, political and economic systems are best for humanity. Socialists, communists, capitalists, anarchists, libertarians, anarcho-socialists (or libertarian socialists), and others all feel absolutely certain that their preferred systems are best for the human race, in particular, and the world in general.

The key word here is “well-meaning,” because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Some people are so blindly in love with their _ideas_they fail to consider the possible consequences of those ideas.

For example, Marxists continue to advocate their collectivist ideas despite the numerous failures those ideas have produced. The Soviet Bloc has disintegrated. During their heyday, the Soviets were world leaders in science, space exploration, international influence, etc. However, they produced no substantial middle-class, many people were forced to live in small, cramped apartments, food was rationed, there were few luxuries for the masses, civil liberties were crushed, the government severely restricted travel, the government determined which jobs people would have, the masses were miserable, etc.

Most Marxists blame the failures of their ideas and policies on capitalism (particularly American- style capitalism). However, capitalism continues to survive. Moreover, capitalists have never blamed the shortcomings of capitalism on the power of the Soviet Union. This raises the legitimate question: what would count as a legitimate Marxist failure that could not in any way be blamed on capitalism? Moreover, if capitalism is so terrible, why have the Russian, Chinese and Cuban governments all embraced capitalist ideas and practices? Indeed, how could China’s amazing economic rise be understood without accepting the fact that capitalist principles are responsible for their success?

According to the August 2012, Vol. 41, No. 7 issue of Money magazine, 40% of the world’s millionaires live in the U.S. Japan is number two with 13%. Guess which country is number three. That is correct. It is China, with 11%. This is the triumph of the classless society of ostensibly communist China? (According to the article, “’Millionaire’ is defined here as having a net worth of

$1 million, excluding primary residence.” The sources of the data are Fidelity Investments, Spectrem Group, the Boston Consulting Group, and the U.S. Census Bureau.)

A few years ago, I used to appear regularly on a radio talk show with a major communist leader. He insisted that it is necessary for communist governments to embrace capitalist ideas and practices so that, paradoxically, they will be better able to destroy capitalism. If this is not serious denial, what is?

Marxists continually blame the U.S. embargo for Cuba’s many struggles. They certainly have a point. However, how does that justify the Cuban government’s denial of human rights to its citizens? How does that justify the police brutality that racist Cuban cops inflict upon Afro- Cubans? (Black Cuban rappers often complain about police brutality in their music.) How does that justify the fact that Black neighborhoods in Cuba are more likely to experience electrical power outages than those living in non-Black neighborhoods? How does that justify the oppression of LGBTQI people in Cuba?

Even long-time defenders of the Cuban government, such as Cornel West and Jesse Jackson, have taken the Cuban government to task for human rights abuses. The U.S. is no more responsible for the Cuban government’s mistreatment of its people than the U.S. is responsible for the misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism, theocracy, etc. that afflicts much of the Arab world.

It has been said that “immigration is the highest form of flattery.” Indeed, countless millions of people from all over the world try to immigrate to the U.S. and other wealthy, non-Marxist nations. However, only the most desperate people have seemed anxious to try to secure citizenship in Cuba, the former Soviet Bloc and other Marxist nations. This cannot simply be attributed to the alleged ignorance of the immigrants. On the contrary, they fully understand that their chances of improving their lives are much greater in non-Marxist nations. Conversely, why have so many people from Cuba, the former Soviet Union, North Korea and other Marxist countries tried so hard to “escape” to capitalist countries? Furthermore, why would their countries not permit them to leave?

Despite America’s well-known problems stemming from White supremacy, African Americans are the wealthiest, most highly educated, and best traveled Black people in the world. Moreover, the annual consumer purchasing power of Black America is so great that, were African Americans to become an independent nation, they would be as wealthy as Canada, one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It seems, then, that capitalism has some obvious empirically verifiable benefits to individuals and societies.

However, this is not to say that there might not be a far better economic system than capitalism— particularly American-style capitalism. After all, in the U.S., many people go hungry, corporate greed has led to the losses of retirement savings for many, tens of millions are without health insurance, etc.

I prefer the social democracies like those of Sweden, Denmark and other northern European nations. There, they have a saying: “Few have too much, and even fewer have too little.” That is to say, the wealth is much more fairly distributed among the population. There is universal health care, child care, comparatively high employment, etc.

Conservative libertarians basically believe that individuals should depend upon themselves with no government aid, with the exception of law enforcement, the military, etc. Hurricane victims should depend upon the generosity of those that are sufficiently concerned about their well-being, not the government. Enlightened self-interest would always triumph, and problems would somehow work themselves out. For the most part, there would be no need for taxation. People would simply agree to contribute their fair share of money, labor and resources for the construction of roads, bridges, etc. Of course, this is utterly unrealistic.

On the flip side, libertarian socialists, or anarcho-socialists, believe in societies without hierarchies. Everyone would be equal, and everyone would democratically agree to run a society which is fair and beneficial to all. This, too, sounds like a pure fantasy. In all probability, that is why no country has ever tried to put it into practice.

Any discussion of economic systems must include attention to the issues of human nature and free will. Do they exist? If so, how do they influence human beings? Human beings have a propensity for competition and cooperation, as do other animal species. If free will exists, we are still not as free as many people believe. We are greatly influenced by our genes, the environment, our family and national histories, political and social systems, cultures, religions, world views, etc. Like any discussion of economic systems, discussions about human nature and free will should be informed by intellectual honesty and critical thought.

People deserve better than mere theories. What is more important than the theory is the actual practice. It is easy to condemn capitalism. However, it is not so easy to come up with a workable alternative. If anyone has a new, workable economic system, I, for one, would love to hear about it. After all, what could be more important to humanism—and to humanity—than an economic system that is realistic and truly fair to all?