The "system" we live in may be unfair for some but is there any that could be better? Looking back, we can see that every alternative (communism, etc) has failed so do you think we live in a less worst or even in a good system?
The system is better today than at nearly any previous point in history. The problems today are less pressing than 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. In the 19th century, you have colonial atrocities, and colonial genocide. In the 20th century, after the Nazis took this to it's logical end, this colonial business was all ended, but then you had the threat of nuclear annihilation. Today there is no threat of nuclear annihilation, but there are environmental and economic things that need to be sorted out, but they will surely be sorted out too, hopefully quicker than the previous things were sorted out.
I wouldn't call communism a total failure, it was an overall failure, there were some successes here and there. For example, in the Soviet Union, wages were fair (for the most part, ignoring some small government perks to officials), homelessness and unemployment were solved, and the education system was excellent, and science was very good. But the productive capacity was terrible, the management was unimaginative, and the political repression was intolerable.
With the fall of the wall, everything went, the few good things along with the worse and bigger bad. But people remember, and try to make the positive things without authoritarian revolutionary party control, without the authoritarianism, or the suppression of entrepreneurship. You have to remember that history moves slowly.
Even once economic organization things are sorted out, and environmental problems are fixed, there will be new issues, maybe regarding artificial life and the rights of artificial biological entities, today you can imagine a new form of slavery involving artificial humans. The controversies are always on the margin of progress, and they only stop once everyone agrees. Regarding colonialism, today, everyone agrees.
This comment has been deleted January 18, 2017
Communism just wasn't a Ponzi scheme, and it didn't collapse intrinsically because it was completely disasterous in production. It was repressive politically, it was censorious and suppressive, it prevented entrepreneurship and innovation, but It was pretty reliable by the 1970s and 1980s. People knew exactly what to expect.
Communism collapsed due to competition with a much better, freer, West, with faster growth and more innovation. The faster growth only became clear once the system stabilized in its mature form, after 1960.
It wasn't a total failure for many other reasons too. The industrialization in all communist states was extremely fast, essentially instantaneous. Russia industrialized in a single 5 year plan, as did Yugoslavia--- this was the main selling point for communist advocates in the third-world in the 1950s, instant industrialization. The standards of living in the Easter block improved gradually every decade (petering out in 1989). There were no social problems of unemployment or homelessness, or deep poverty (aside from general poverty as compared to the West), the growth was completely recession free, once communism was mature, it was a steady system, you didn't have to worry about recessions. After 1960, the most horrible political repression and grossly criminal mismanagement that characterized the early decades was basically under control--- you didn't have to worry about another Ukranian famine, or something like this.
It wasn't a Ponzi scheme, it was just a centally planned economy. It worked to produce the goods which are sufficient for sustenance and day-to-day life of a population, and it produced various industrial and consumer goods of middling to low quality consistently, the same, year after year.
It was a failure because the growth was tepid by Western standards, the economies were always a tenth to a half of the size of their Western equivalents, and the innovation was nonexistent, it was all copied from the West, slowly and poorly. This became intolerable with the consumer electronics revolution. The Soviet block just couldn't keep up with all the little gizmos and gadgets, and computers. This was extremely difficult for a planning agency to do.
The center for home-computer production in the communist world was Bulgaria, they made a few competent computers. But these computers were always 4-5 years behind the Western equivalent, they were usually clones of popular Western models, and in computers, being 5 years behind means being in the middle ages.
Centrally planned communism is an inefficent system, and it proved itself to be inefficient. But the inefficiencies are often perveted and exaggerated by propaganda. Things were bad enough in the East, due to the repression and general mediocre economic output, without making up extra nonsense about the system.
This comment has been deleted January 18, 2017
It was sustainable. It just grew slower.