"And in ideal capitalist society, everyone would work for the elite, with as small wages as people stay alive"

Who is saying things like that? In an "ideal" competitive capitalist society wages are created by the market as everything else. If your skills are sought you can command high wages, especially if unemployment is low. If unemployment is high wages will get lower. You can see this for example in software developers. In Silicon Valley where competition for the best people with the right skill is hard employees get ridiculous amounts of money. Sometimes people go back to Manchester capitalism to show that unhindered capitalism means low wages. The problem with this is, that this was a time of really high population growth coupled with lots of people leaving the countryside. I.e. the supply of workers was higher than demand -> the wages were low.

So unchecked capitalism = low wages is wrong. It is true though that people with low skills loose out badly.

I have lived almost half of my life in a Socialistic country (socialism = communism lite) which was one of the countries in Ex-Yugoslavia. We separated by war(we wanted to separate peacefully, but the other side liked war more... especially if it's not waged on their land), and trough the following years became a Capitalistic country.

From personal experience, both systems are far from ideal, but capitalism is really beggining to show it's ugly face lately. While in socialism many things were censored, and there was lots of repression from the goverment, freedom in capitalism has become just a tool or an excuse for certain people with money to do repression on the others who have little money -> there is a forming of extremes - on one side wealthy people, and on other side poor ppl, ppl who are burdened with credits and so on. There is less and less middle class ppl.

While i cannot complain about my financial situation (middle class), i think capitalism is as bad as socialism was, and maybe worst in the terms that ppl have become less willing to help eachother. I think original communism would be the best system, but application of communism, or better said abuse of the theory of communism so far has given it a really bad name.

 All official GDP figures you read are adjusted for inflation.  All countries use GDP to measure their annual output, so the fact that it's a universal standard means it works perfectly.  As long as the majority of the world uses it as a standard for economic output measurement, than it works fine.  You have miscontrued what GDP is intended to do.

 Ideally, yes they would, much like we have competeing intelligence agencies (seriously exactly how many does the USA have? I know its more than a handful). Even if not the thought that monopolies are inherently inefficeint is bunk. Monopoplies are only inefficeint when (surprise surprise) there is a drive for more and more profits. Just look at MS, Ma Bell both drivin by profits. Now compare to the electric company who is a monopoly who aren't drivin solely by profits. Also look at gas companies there are TONS of them and look at how crazy prices are, and no you can't blame the arab/saudi/iranian royalty because shell/exxon/cheveron/mobile/etc are making more profits than before. Should not competition keep the price down (and thus profits)? It seems to me that traditional economic thinking on monopolies only makes sense if you take out the greed factor. And as long as private interests control businesses there will always be greed.

IIRC communism cannot be compared to capitalism since Communism is a Phillosophy What your real question is is How does Socialism Compare to Capitalism. Learned that in macro economics the hard way XD. Unfortunately i have to say in this time we are not prepared for something such as a Socialistic society because the incentive to work harder then others is lost as people would have no respect for anything since they do not own anything which is how Russian farmers and workers felt. Also with Socialism supply and demand are no longer there and basicly the goverment decides what you get and how much you get! there is not going to a grocerry store you get what they think you get.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. Same goes for corporations!

Anyways. That was 95% off topic. I refuse to engage in this kind of debate on the internet, because it almost always falls into a few lines of mental masturbation that ultimately come down to people repeating the same point over and over ("Communism fucks up supply and demand!" "Capitalism has an unfair distribution of wealth!" "I have Adam Smith's cock in one of my ears and Karl Marx's in the other!", etc.)

Basically, go read some books.

Economic theory is not up for debate.  If you think it is, you're a fool.  You can mathematically prove that in any market where there is a monopoly behaving as a self-interested business, it is less efficient than it would have been had there been competition.  The main exception to this proof is of course that it assumes that competition is possible in the market in question.  Go to wikipedia (see price setting for irregulated monopolies) or buy yourself an economics textbook.  Public-owned non-self-interested monopolies are different since they do not act to maximize profit, but its still always less efficient for anyone to set a price no matter how good his intentions, than it is for a free, competitive market to reach the equilibrium price. 

On another note, what happens under your scheme if I have a good idea for a company?  Why the heck should I have to appeal to the government to join in my effort to open my company?  If the idea is very risky, why the heck should the government join in on it anyway?  

Futhermore, as the topic was communism, I've tried to limit my objections to simply economic ones, because I've been trying to argue that communism is counter-productive to its intended goal (raise the standards of living for everyone, I assume).  But on a values note, why the heck shouldn't I be able to open up a toy store in my home town if I want to, and make that toy store exactly the way I want it to be?  Why should the government be involved in my effort to make this idea come true?  Its my vision, my idea, why can't it be my shop? 

"Economic theory is not up for debate."
Except it is hence the word THEORY.

Also, we are basically saying the same thing here. The only difference is you seem to omit seriously glaring errors in 'free and open ecenomics equals lower price' thought as I have already given a great example of a free and open market wich does the opposite.

I'm not touching the morality of needing aproval for a business as there really is no moral high ground for either system. After all what is so morally correct about a business that makes deals with city inspectors to get them to declare your building not up to code thus putting you out of business. Or a system that claims to be against monopolies yet they CONSISTANTLY crop up time and time again? What is so great about a system where profits go up across an industry while salaries go down?

The view from the top.

Touche!