My initial question was your first question mirrored in the communist mind. And I did it to show you your own bias (could you see it?), not to avoid answering the question. Note that right after I answered all of your questions. Actually I have. I didn't tell you the details of my alternative, just the outline. And I did it on purpose. I want you to think by yourself. Can't you realize that both Communism and Capitalism take from the productive and give to the non-productive? I could give you a world of examples. I will choose the very company I work at. It's the 3rd player of the national market. I work there at projects to bring process innovation and continuous improvement. We establish partnerships with consulting companies and universities that bring top-notch knowledge to our organization. We produce technological and operational tools that allow us to be much more efficient than our competition. Moreover, we make a daily effort to control costs and maximize results. I have no doubt we have the best operation of the whole industry (the one that performs best with less resources). The 1st and 2nd players of the market have no partnerships with consulting companies and universities, actually no projects department of any kind, not even continuous improvement teams. They just trow in money on every operational struggle. They don't need to control costs as we do. "Let the stocks be high, let the resources be many, and if they're not enough we buy more". They're just big and with deep pockets. Are they less efficient than us? No, they aren't. They manage to get the same (if not better) operating margin as we get. How so? Economies of scale, my friend. If our organization switched resources with one of them, meaning that we would keep our people, know-how and modus operandi and we would get their infrastructure, equipment and money and vice versa, man, we would be kings and they would implode in a couple of months. In most cases, no one knew about its existence in the first place. The tiny company doesn't have the projection, the visibility or the marketing budget to get known. In other cases, the big corporation just copies the innovation and, even being late, reaps all the rewards. Only in a very small percentage of cases, the tiny company succeeds. And, even here, it's common for the big corporation to acquire them and reap part (if not most) of the rewards. You assume the market (every market) has perfect competition, perfect knowledge, etc. That's not true at all. It's interesting that it's you who uses economic myths. You see the whole world as a small village where everybody knows each other and the "playing field" is leveled. That's not the world we live in. They do not produce wealth, period. If I lend you an oven and you produce bread with it, only you generated wealth, I didn't. At most, you could say that both your work and my oven have produced wealth. My oven, not me. If I died, the bread would be produced anyway. If you died, it wouldn't. An efficient socio-economic system needs workers and resources, not owners. Owners do nothing. If we remunerate them, we are giving to the non-productive and, therefore, the system is incentivizing people not to work. That's like saying that without workers a communist system cannot operate and wealth cannot be generated. Therefore, the workers are at the center of a communist system. That's false. In a communist system, workers are remunerated, but then non-workers are too. Therefore, work is not at the center, the community is. In a capitalist system, workers are also remunerated, but then non-workers are too. Therefore, work is not at the center, capital is.