Every time I hear talk of Marx and communism, with a utopia world where there is no private property I can't help but think of the "Tragedy of the Commons". Which basically talks about how over fishing, hunting, and logging is often caused by this sharing of resources. That is when a resource is a community resource there is no incentive for conservation because if you don't use the resource then someone else will, the result is people take too much and leave nothing behind.
Where as if the land is privately owned it is in the interest of the owner to properly manage it so the natural resources remain and can be harvested on a regular basis, this is the mind set of most farmers. That said it doesn't mean the owner at some point won't be a short sighted fool who strips the land for short term gains. But if the land is unowned with anyone harvesting as they please then it's even more likely to be stripped bare. So the risk of a bad owner who mismanages the land doesn't negate it being an overall better system.
The other problem is I think Marx was right about people over throwing the Big Greedy Companies/Individuals but wrong about how they would do it and what would happen afterwards. As technology and communication improves it is undermining the big corporate structures that hold people under thumb. Things like Kickstarter, Patreon, and other crowd funding are allowing small start ups to get funds that would have previously been unavailable. Being a gaming site I'm sure most of you are all aware of how the Indy gaming scene has been putting out some high quality titles lately while the big studies put out Shiny Crap that strains your Gfx card but lacks any real substance.
Technology allows more people to make what they want and get it out to the people who enjoy it, compared to the soulless assembly line view of the future Marx had envisioned. Plus with more automation fewer people are needed on assembly lines so it's likely as time goes on less people will have jobs in industry and more in content creation.
Also Marx talk of how it's in the Capitalist best interest to pay the worker as little as possible is not really true, and is often viewed as correct policy by short sighted business folks. Henry Ford become one of the Richest men in American by following a counter policy...
"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."
Henry Ford
He paid his workers about 3 times the going rate and was considered a fool by his peers at the time who claimed he would go bankrupt within a couple months. But Henry Ford realized that if no one could afford his product then he wouldn't have a business. So that is if companies follow the path Marx's imagines the workers, and thus population at large, won't be about to buy any of the goods and thus the business can't stay in business. This is what we see happen in developing countries who are trying to leap into the modern world. They have sweat shops that pay nothing then wonder why when they try to develop a commercial district with modern style shopping malls they are empty, because few people can actually afford the.
Today's industry seems to be based on the idea of minimal quality good, at lowest cost, paying the lowest possible wage. Which is eroding our economic strength and being short sights as companies which use to be Giants in their industry have fallen quite far due to customer's going else where. But also as poorly paid employees can only afford the essentials and not the extra luxury items they are tasked with making.
These issue stem for a common misconception regarding economics and wealth. Most talk about the economy as a pie and if one person get's a bigger slice than others get a smaller piece. But the economy is in a constant state of flux, new technologies in particular produce new products that create wealth so that not only is the pie larger but it contains stuff not previously present. So if someone creates something new the can end up with a lot of wealth but a lot of that is wealth that didn't exist the economy before, thus them getting really rich doesn't take anything from someone else.
The other misconception regarding wealth is that everything is equally divisible. Curtain items are extremely rare and this is reflected in their value. Like a rare diamond that is worth $100M can't be divided among a lot of people. So even if you give everyone the same amount of food, water, houses, and etc. then give the diamond to one person that person will be considered to be extremely rich compared to the other people even though all they have is one extra stone. Most rich people often spend their money on these extravagant items which are pretty much useless to the ordinary person because they can afford it and the rarity of such items are a status symbol.
Back to Marxism though the biggest problem is the "each according to his need". People don't actually need that much to survive. Primate tribes around the world easily survive with shelter as simply as animal skin tents and grass/mud huts. They get water from local streams/rivers. Then they hunt/farm/forage off the land. Or if you prefer a more developed life style you could look at Amish. The point is people don't really "need" most of what we have in the modern world, they simply "want" it. Because people have a natural animal instinct to establish dominance, though in modern cultures it's not physical dominance but rather dominance in social standing.
