You're right, he takes off from some observations about the Soviet union. Perhaps the main issue with that is pretty much everyone thought that was a terrible system and thus we are prepared to accept the viewpoint about happiness that he presents.

Free markets, as I prefer to call it, are different. There's a fair case that a lot of good has come from it, along with not so good things. Thus to present the case from a free markets point of view would require a fair bit more explanation:

- Why is it that you're not more happy being able to choose from 10 varieties of toothpaste than when you just buy the one that is there?

- People who work minimum wage jobs, why are they not happy there was at least that? They's be starving otherwise, right? Why aren't they all grateful?

- What is it about extreme specialization that's so unsatisfying? Even Adam Smith touched on this IIRC.

> I believe you are accidentally describing equanimity

Think I learned a new word today!

Thanks!

Honestly when I read this I was not expecting it to touch politics and how societies organize themselves. My point is not that capitalism is bad for happiness, is that I don't think politics are that relevant in the discussion.

Happiness is almost always defined as the opposite to something else. As a solution for a problem. Socialism and Free markets and many other structures provide slightly different manners to enable those solutions. This is what your average zen monk would perhaps call duality.

But being happy is fundamentally a game where the only winning move is not to play. Equanimity, as acceptance of the present is a much more sustainable approach to use a more common language.

If we want to talk about which system would favour this better, well, I honestly don't know. I feel this is much more deeper matter of education, philosophy and appreciation for life. Freedom of speech is probably better for it but I'm not sure it makes a significant difference and we will not be able to measure it.

Socialism might remove the struggle of life and therefore the meaning of it. Free markets fosters artificial struggles and distractions to life, making meaning artificial. You could then argue that all meaning is ultimately artificial, which I would probably agree, but I don't see how it makes it better.

Ultimately, I don't think the solution is in the society. It must be the individual, only he/she/it transcends. Any transmission of that happens via direct experience, or a lot of books and introspection, not abstract models that you can teach easily. I have no idea how to do this at scale, I suspect it is not possible.

But the closest ideal would probably be to just teach and discuss philosophy across the world for the genuine interest of leading a better life and not to project status.