Seen the Euro much lately?

A global currency can not be successful unless a global government came first.

As for the rest of your post, your sadly mistaken for one main reason.

If people were in the mindset to work in a communist system....

a communist system would be completely unneeded since the people would be doing this themselves.

Which is why the original Marxist doctrin called just for that... once people were in the mindset of living for the "community" government has no further need to exist.   Not living for the state... which is facism.

It's what is labeled now a days as Anarco-communism.  However, I don't believe direct democracy was a point of the original communism rather more a "Everyoen does what they think is best for the state" type situation.   Anarco-Communism is actually what you can see being practiced by the Occupy Wallstreet movement at the moment.  Most likely it will breakdown because people will vote for their interests rather then the groups interests and end up with a tyranny of the majority situation.

As for modern day Marxism....

"If this is Marxism, I am not a Marxist"

-Karl Marx.

Communism is a horribly broken concept that could never work ...

At its core Communism requires the elimination of personal choices and freedoms in economic activities in exchange for having an economy that is centrally planned, and fights against the nature of mankind by eliminating all incentives in the economy.

You want to be an artist? Too bad, you get to be a janitor because some central planner arbitrarily decided that you get to be the person who cleans the toilets.

You don’t like the bland oat cereal called "Lenin O’s"? Too bad, because that is the only cereal that the central planner thought should be made.
You like playing videogames? Too bad, videogames don’t exist because a central planner decided the only use for computers was for doing engineering calculations.

You want to work hard and sacrifice so you can move out of your cramped living conditions and into a nice neighbourhood? Too bad, everyone has to live in the same cramped in-adequate housing.

In a true free market economy if you see a problem you can fix it and get rewarded because of your contribution ... In a communist system that isn't possible.

You use the middle ages however the church at the time preached very little actual morality. The church was perverse and used the Bible for political means and to control and mobilize the people. At the time the average citizen couldn't actually read the Bible and the church used that. Note I am not Catholic, fact is that the moral basis we modern day countries are founded on is based in the Bible.

The penal code the UN's humanitarian laws. In fact remove religion all together and where is the basis for any laws? What makes one thing right and another wrong? If all humans are animals why should we care about one another? If we don't care about one another what would happen to modern society?

Also what makes what the Catholic Church did during the Middle Ages any worse then what any other empire did? The Persians the moors etc....etc... Christianity was still growing and as I said the people couldn't even read the Bible. Fact is you cannot judge Christianity entirely based on one time period and one group of people (Catholics).

If we want to follow that logic what about Atheist China or the brutality carried out in the name of exterminating religion in the Soveit Union?

You can't judge an entire belief system on the acts of a few. Authoritarian Governments around the world use any method they can to control their people. If it means bastardizing a religion they do if it means convincing the population God doesn't exist then they do.

But fact is that modern society is built upon the principles laid out in the Bible.

Fixed.

And the reason the poor don't rise up is that, generally speaking, they're either too lazy (which is why they're poor in the first place) or too distracted by their iPhones, vidya games, and recreational substance abuse (which really puts their "poverty" in perspective).

This, very much this. I didn't even know my views could be summed up so nicely.

okay, wtf?!?  why you got to troll me bro?  that bit was terribly unneeded and unrelated to the rest of your post...

Economic systems, planned or not, have a way to get people to do things they don't want to do as a career.  In a totally free market driven system, a person may want to be an artist, but if the market doesn't care he is an artist (say you are in a world like Idiocracy had where the people watch buttocks on the screen for 2 hours), then the market will say, "You need to find something else to do".  The difference is that, in a planned economy there is a said "genius" at top that plans out everything.  In an unplanned economy, you run into hiring managers and computer systems that tell you whether or not you get hired and you have to guess what the market wants.

Like, golly gee, I would like to make a living creating boardgames.  Well, as it is now, you don't make a living creating board games, because the money is too low to do that.  To try to pitch the "freedom to choose" as some sort of thing anyone can do, which would fix every ill is to totally misrepresent how markets work.

Freedom to choose doesn't mean that you're entitled to succeed, naturally, since consumers are also free and will rebuff an artist whose work they dislike or can't relate to. But it does mean that you have the freedom to try your hand at whatever you want, whereas in a planned economy, you simply don't.

By the same token, supporting free markets doesn't necessitate seeing the free market as the cure for all ills. It only requires that a person come to the realization that centrally planned economies always fail spectacularly because it would take a God-like intelligence to manage such things, and of course, no such person exists or ever shall.

I'm well aware that it's a fiction book, I wasn't beign serious with it.

BTW, I don't know if you've read it (I remember you saying that you don't like reading fiction), but soma wasn't used to make people enojoy their role in society unjealously. Eugenics (which would've been replaced with genetic engineering had Huxley written the book at a later time), segregation and indoctrination were. Eugenics was used to make sure the people from a certain cast were all similar physically and intellectually (cloning was actually used for the non-Alpha and Betas, so they'd be the same), the indoctrination started since birth, and was used to convince people that their cast was the best, and all other casts were bad, and the segregation was used to make sure people of different casts didn't interact with eachother (they were actually made to develop a repulsion for anyone not of their cast).

The only 'jealous' person in the whole book was Bernard, and that was because of an accident while he was concieved, that made him be inferior physically to the other Alphas. Add the fact that there were no diseases, famine, poverty etc., and even the lowest of the low didn't have to face the hardship that poor people face nowadays. The only issue in that society was trying to get people to accept their role, which was only an issue for the Alphas who were intelligent, as everyone else was too dumb to be able to contemplate such matters (not to mention that, as I said before, there were no real hardships).

Well, that's only if you're one of the common folks. The people high up in the party lived in palaces.