The problem with communism is that there is no incentive to improve societal conditions or intellectual advancement. Equality sounds good on the surface but in practice but without advancement, innovation, and a reason to strive for higher ideals a society will stagnate and die. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" doesn't work because its the needy and unable who benefit the most from the arrangement, hence why would I work hard to make a living when I could let you do the work for me and still have the same exact standard of living as you do? I have no reason to do so when I could simply kick back, relax, and let those willing to work pay my bills. Of course, this results in no one being willing to work beyond the minimum they might be required to since there is no incentive for me to do so.

The only way communism would somewhat work would be in a system where all the jobs are about the same in terms of difficulty and people would be forced to work. China's forced labor camps are a great example of that but China has seen the failure of its system and is now moving very aggressively in a capitalist direction while the United States instead is moving more toward communism. The end result will be China replacing the United States as the world's chief superpower unless we learn from the mistakes of the past.

Capitalism isn't equitable, it's not meant to be... but it works. Under capitalism people are compensated based on the societal value of their contribution which means the more they contribute the better they live. If you don't contribute anything you die, simple as that. Equitable? No. Fair? Yes.

Communism pretty much always ends up with the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of people and it is not like even works any way. It wasn't until China developed a capitalist style economy that it became successful.

I'm just going to lay out why I think that communism is outdated, for a lack of better wording, and why a capitalistic system will work better for our society today.

Very early into the first civilizations, which solely consumed agricultural produce and the occasional animal product, there wasn't much need for a system of private property or markets, as people made just enough to sustain their own breath, and often may have needed to assist someone after their crops failed (flooding droughts), they were looted, consumed by animals, etc.

People generally had to really only worry about keeping themselves fed, and there would be no such thing as risk aversion of capital, after all, the only industries that you could invest in were your own farm, you could hardly demand other products much less produce them yourself, otherwise one might be able to slowly overtake their neighbors in time of financial crisis via usury and soon seize a disproportionate amount of belongings or land (other natural inequalities presented in inequalities in land productivity and inherited wealth, but to a lesser extent).

ie When setting up community in an uninhabited land with a handful of people equipped only plows and furs, your first task isn't going to be tuning monetary policy.

Later on, people began to develop other trades, more importantly, people were able to specialize in trades other than growing their own food. Still, as consistent with the LTV, which many market socialists (namely mutualists) espouse, labor would at that time been still a very good metric for value, and property rights assigned to possession would've allowed some degree of exchange and competition that society could handle without crippling inequality.

Wealth of Nations Book 1, Chapter 4, Page 45

IN THAT EARLY and rude state of society which precedes both the

accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for acquiring different objects, seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally

exchange for or be worth two deer.

It is natural that what is usually the produce of two days or two hours labour, should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day’s or one hour’s

labour.

If the one species of labour should be more severe than the other,

some allowance will naturally be made for this superior hardship;

and the produce of one hour’s labour in the one way may frequently exchange for that of two hour’s labour in the other.

Or if the one species of labour requires an uncommon degree of

dexterity and ingenuity, the esteem which men have for such talents, will naturally give a value to their produce, superior to what would be due to the time employed about it.

Such talents can seldom be acquired but in consequence of long application, and

the superior value of their produce may frequently be no more

than a reasonable compensation for the time and labour which

must be spent in acquiring them.

In the advanced state of society, allowances of this kind, for superior hardship and superior skill, are commonly made in the wages of labour; and something of the

same kind must probably have taken place in its earliest and rudest period.

In this state of things, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer; and the quantity of labour commonly employed in acquiring or producing any commodity, is the only circumstance which can regulate the quantity of labour which it ought commonly to purchase, command, or exchange for.

Now, we have a great variety of industries, and wealth inequality can exist without depriving the needs of that many citizens, so we must look to allowing what the rich normally do with their disposable income, invest! With this, the rich can buy out large quantities of land and other goodies (and have the best incentive to make industry as productive as possible).

The amount of resources in our society can sustain unequal pay and competition, and we can begin to set up a governing apparatus that allocates private property as needed to smooth out imperfections in the market (slump in aggregate demand, stickiness in wages, exchange of currency that is too low or "tight" to fit a much larger market) AND we can handle further inequality through investment due to a greater quantity of wealth.

You need both to make capitalism ideal, and need to only have the requirement of markets and not the sustainability required to maintain private propety to form a non-capitalistic market.

Communism assumes people will do the right things "just because", it also assumes people aren't ambitious, that they will attempt to achieve a higher standard of living.

I don't really think it would work in the long term.

Capitalism. Of corse you have to have some sort of union laws, but over all capitalism is the way to go.

Capitalism is, simply put, the superior economic system. It almost hurts me to think that some people believe it is a system designed to only benefit the rich.

In phase 2 of Marx's theory of Communism: a dictator or elite leader must gain absolute control over the proletariat.