Communism is scientifically flawed. Its primary hypothesis - that people are shaped by experience; and, hence fall into either the bourgeois or proletariat mindset is false. If it were true then a member of the bourgeois could never understand a member of the proletariat. Secondly, the litmus test for 'class' has never been established, that is to say, how do you differentiate the bourgeois and proletariat? The definitive answer is ... You cannot! Wealth is relative, and from this measure the bourgeois from North Dakota would be considered a mere proletariat in California. In the same light, the Lords Proletariat would be deemed quite affluent when compared to his counter-part in Coventry (would this make him bourgeois? Well only the tyrannical mob of the revolution could determine that). Neo-Marxism attempts to deny some aspects of this psychological tenet ... but how many times does 'Das Kapital' - the commie’s handbook - need to be revised?


P.S. Capitalism has never translated into freedom; and, on that note, neither does globalization ... but that's another story. The diffusion of wealth - or lack there of - and the marginal productivity of labour, dictate that capitalist societies cannot achieve egality. The degree of freedom merely depends on the mobility of capital ... this is at least preferable over communism - in which freedom (and life or death as a matter of fact) are determined by the mob.