Having just seen Italian riot police joining in with the anti-EU demonstrations they were working at, they demonstrate what is with every single animal at birth, the wish to be free. Animals never lose it, but people can be convinced they are still free even when their oppressors are taking advantages of them like parasites, and persuading many of its victims to ask for more.
With its foundations of burning and burying food, not because they produced too much, but to keep the prices up, it could have never grown into anything else but a political cancer, sucking the lifeblood out of all the member states, who willingly join thinking the tumour is genuine healthy growth. There really is a difference, as the Eurozone crisis is now highlighting, as with decades of recession and record unemployment ahead, how could a single affected country ever be worse off had it never joined in the first place? As for the bank 'bail-in' (negative account entries, ie removing the money you put there to be safe) in Cyprus, whose fault exactly was it when the banks went broke and the others were bailed out (still with our money mind you) in the first place? The depositors? Hardly. Now this law applies across the EU, so any more bank failures will simply be allowed to get the losses back from innocent depositors. Like the Mafia would. Does anyone expect this to be possible in a civilised country? I certainly don't.
The modern trend of restricting opinion, demonising anyone against gay marriage or abortion, despite something even an atheist like me believes in (most anyway), breaking most of the ten commandments. Opinions are just that, unless criminal then they are equal, some are not nice but we all have the equal right to have our own, and in some countries like Hungary the not nice ones like anti-Semitism are the majority, and there is absolutely nothing anyone outside can do about it when they elect parties who support it, as unless they begin acting on it, in which case they would be breaking the law under most countrys' rules, it is their opinion, like it or not. The same for the Russian anti gay promotion laws- we had the same in Britain a couple of decades ago and no one tried to boycott our products, as it was a democratic choice. Note, neither target gay people, as that would be illegal, they just do not allow encouraging it in schools. That reflected the current collective opinion of society and implied they could continue freely on their own merits without any promotion from society.
So, by taking some extreme examples and demonstrating how no one opinion can ever be held above another, as they are all founded not on any facts (rhubarb stalks are good, but rhubarb leaves are poisonous for instance) but choices, (I prefer rhubarb to strawberries). You don't usually see laws favouring one fruit over another, but many people would make it illegal to criticise things like gay marriage nowadays, because their opinion is held as more important than others. That led to the fall of empires throughout history, when the authorities didn't allow their citizens to think for themselves, but like Maoist (and present day) China, even wrote a little red book telling them exactly the only ways they could think.
You cannot have a free society where opinions, or opportunities to speak freely or own property are restricted. The excuse or ideology of equality simply extends a truism, every person's life is equal and must be treated a such, to the level that every person is equal in every way, when clearly each is unique. This twist in logic has led to some of the worst atrocities throughout history, by stealing the land and property of those who worked for it and returning it to the people. Now using the laws of physics, Newton's laws, power is directly related to the work put in. The more work, the more power is created. You do not have the masses sitting on their backsides complaining about their lot, and simply letting the small group of excellence collect wealth through their own efforts to remove most of it and give it to the rest who have not earned it. That is not equality as the worker's rights have been attacked as their wealth which they put more work into to collect has simply been returned to the pool who had not worked for it. If everyone took that approach no one would bother to work more than the bare minimum, and everyone would simply wait for someone else to do more so they could get the benefits for nothing, except no one else would as what would be the point?
That is the crux of communism. If there is no incentive to work more, no one ever will. Shops and manufacturers will go broke, as who can buy luxuries if their incomes are capped by taxation so could never amass enough for luxuries? Yes, the people would all have the basics, but never more, as work and work forever their wealth would always be cut at the same level and all growth would return to the state to spend as they please.
Combine the restriction of opinions, speech and wealth and however kind hearted you may be for those worse off than yourself, you can never help them through telling their enemies what they can think or taking money from the rich like Robin Hood, if you do it enough they will either leave or try and kill you. Nature's will for freedom will always overcome man's attempts to restrict it sooner or later. I doubt many London socialists championing the policies of Cuba would enjoy being sent to live there after the first day or two, but are happy to try their best to create it here.