No, the current system produces by far the highest standard of living for the most people. There are a lot of things that could be said about this -- such as t

No, the current system produces by far the highest standard of living for the most people. There are a lot of things that could be said about this -- such as the real effect on "living standards" outside of the former imperial core, a.k.a. the rest the world, since "the current system" forced its way in these countries during the era roughly encompassing 1790-1950. (Hint: by some accounts utterly devastating; in general less than 1850 standards; in some cases abysmally worse). Or say, that small matter of the ecological impact of our wonderful system, and the ever-widening cornucopia of goods, pleasures and experiences it produces -- and the very real, imminent, and starkly negative effects this impact will have on "living standards" across much of the planet, not too far off from now. Or heck, even that pesky little subject of not just "stagnating", but declining median living standards in the U.S. generally, over the last 20-30 years. But I wasn't talking about living standards. So it's a completely different subject. Versus: USSR Living standards in modern CIS countries "versus" those the peak socialist years (late 50s - late 70s) would make for a very interesting comparison, indeed. (Again, just as a hint: they've largely plummeted, across the board). Cuba. Cambodia. Vietnam. Socialist Germany and Italy of the 20th century. North Korea. Mao's China. Venezuela. Aside from the naked cherry picking (by listing only "their" basket cases and failures, never "ours"), listing Italy in the same sentence as the GDR, North Korea and Mao's China, in virtually any context, is just... bizarre.