For one thing, the concept of 'communism' according to Marx is a stateless, classless society. Since communist states were 'states' & ruled by parties which wer

For one thing, the concept of 'communism' according to Marx is a stateless, classless society. Since communist states were 'states' & ruled by parties which were very similar to a ruling 'class,' I thnk we can call this grounds for appeal. The big difference: the USSR was a "communist" country in that it was ruled by the Communist Party, its leaders went around proclaiming it was a communist country, and most outside communist-sympathising observers would have said at the time that it was communist. The US has never been a libertarian country, in that the Libertarian party has never been in power, its leaders have never gone around proclaiming it to be a libertarian country, and foreign libertarian-sympathising observers (e.g. me) would never have said it was libertarian. The question is: would the US/Iceland/UK have been better off under more regulated financial markets? Actually I think the question is: would the US/Iceland/UK have been better off under differently regulated financial markets? And the answer is almost certainly yes, which leads to the question of precisely what kind of regulation is most sensible. Simply saying "we need more regulation" is a terrible idea, since many possible new regulations are likely to be useless or counterproductive.