Many people keep arguing about communism, capitalism, democracy, etc... The problem with the topic is people are mixing types of definitions, and not identifying certain characteristics we all expect.

Capitalism is going to exist in any type of system where we have desires for goods, as we're all going to accumulate, so that exists, it can't be removed... Yet the way that finances is governed depends on the economic state.

Thus a better model of a capitalist system that takes the best ideas of communism, and socialism, is to allow that people who have wealth put back into the lower classes. So if someone is an entrepreneur, it should be governed that they have to invest into hospitals, schools, physical exercise, etc; so that the workers are better trained, healthier, and more manageable.

If we started this system within the religious structuring of society it would become a social norm, so if someone is wealthy and goes to some sort of religious worship, this should be more seen as a charity event, where the money paid in goes directly to charity. Where churches become community hubs, where there is free food, community support, with funding from those in society who can afford it. That way when we see people going to church on a holy day, we will think of them as the charitable, and we think of the church as a corner hub of society to support the poor.

This same structuring then needs better governance in the systems of law and order, where we have a true democratic representation of the people's choices. We should not be electing people with the most wealth to put forward a campaign; we should be employing the most educated people in society, to reason the best mechanisms for any topic, and allow the people to decide what is most appropriate for the whole - as that would be truly democracy then. Currently we have a republic, which has never been functional since Rome, as people always get paid off, and the accumulation of capital always suggests the wealthiest will elect themselves.

For those who've read Karl Marx Communist Manifesto, it is a great dream; yet it isn't functional, as the working classes will never be the entrepreneurs. Just like the worker ants, won't become the queen; some are born to do certain jobs, and some are more adept at organizing, and being ahead of the game.

Leninism was to enforce a dictatorship communistic state, which then defeats the purpose of it being a communistic society - who work together for the greater goal. Instead it became a fascist state that rules over the people.

Maoism was trying to make the working class overthrow the capitalist elitism, which then leads to the entrepreneur still filtering through later, and modern day China is again capitalist. With new revolutionary Maoist trying to overthrow the Capitalist system again.

For Marx Manifesto to be functional, we need to recognize that to have equality within the financial structuring of a system, leads to greater production. When any given part of a system sees that their own levels of efficiency, leads to greater wealth for themselves, people will work more effortlessly, and more consciously to achieve more. There is a sense of pride at knowing we got the job done between us, it doesn't pay to only employ staff, and exploit them, as when they feel they're achieving the end goals, they will strive to reach it. When they realize their own contributions lead to greater benefits, they will also put their whole efforts into ways to achieve this.

These systems need to be there within all aspects of society, not just a factory example as Marx listed; yet cleaners, bin men, road sweepers, who literally are financed by their own efficiency. If road sweepers, cleaners, were given the right to prosecute those who would take from the efficiency; litter wouldn't happen, as their sense of pride at achieving our goals, would mean people became respectful of the whole. Since they're no longer seen as the lower worker ants who don't have any authority; yet the achievers who make sure the system functions cleanly, it would cause the rest of the system to cooperate or face consequences.

The system of governance shouldn't be based on the wealthiest; yet the most proficient in their field of study. So if someone is a master of economics, where they have a lot more study into what will be functional; then their debates, and decisions will be based on a more logical understanding, without the biases of personal wealth, before efficiency. The decisions of people within a given field, should then be democratically voted on, where everyone can vote on any topic. A republic where people represent their vote, makes people have a sense that it doesn't actually affect their life directly, giving them a sense they can't change things; if people felt more personal responsibility for their environment, everyone would cooperate more to achieve it all being functional.

This should happen for all given fields of political governance, so let farmers make decisions for farming, let healthcare professionals make decisions for what is needed in healthcare; yet let the end decision be democratically voted for, where everyone who wants to will get involved. Fair enough in some situations people could influence the public to vote in favour of an idea, yet so can counter ideas, and in comparison to lobbying a politician to bias their vote, it is far harder to change the masses to the same decision.