> The misunderstanding of many "command economy" or central planners, is they see the world as a zero sum game: people have to take at the expense of others to gain any type of success.
This is only true when the total population exceeds the amount of natural resources available to support said population. I can't comment on whether or not this is the case, but it is very well possible that survival on this planet is a zero-sum game.
> This is Marxism at its core. You can believe in its concepts, but history teaches us that they have been abismal failures and end up robbing individuals of their dreams, aspirations, motivations and the incentive to reach beyond their "own little sphere".
History has taught us that no one likes living in a harsh dictatorship ruled by incompetent leaders. And I wouldn't be so sure that capitalism and free market systems haven't "robbed people of their dreams, aspirations, motivations or incentive," etc., in a world of extremely concentrated wealth, gaping wealth disparities, copyrighted food products, massive poverty, failing social programs, crippling debt, wage slaves, etc etc etc.
> A free market system has provided, historically, the most efficient way of dealing with both unlimited and limited resources.
Define "efficient." Every natural environment has been on the decline for the past 30 years. The atmosphere is becoming saturated by greenhouse gases. One fourth of the food wasted in the first world could feed every starving person in the third world. Modern society is completely dependent upon rapidly depleting fossil fuels with comparatively little investment in alternative energy.
(P.S., wryme is my old account. You are talking to the same person here, just to be clear.)