Neither 'true communism' nor 'true capitalism' should be pursued. Both are extremely underspecified visions offering little utility to legislatorrs concerned with the details of implementations, use labels which needlessly polarize the electorate, and would unnecessarily decrease social stability.
It removes all aspects of economy and its issues, meaning no more crisis and poverty. It also makes all men truly equal upon the law, deleting social differences. True communism also would imply in a better industry.
True unsinkable ships are better than ships that have the possibility of sinking and should be pursued. It can be pursued but is impossible to be attained.
Most argue that capitalism fails due to greed. Considering greed as a negative component of human will born from ego, "True Communism", a theoretical model based on absolute equality in the absence of class, could be veiwed the same as putting the hyenas in the same cage as the antelope.
Communism only works as automation increases. If all farming is done by robots, there are no humans in need of being paid to incentivize food production, and food can thus be free to all. Every industry that can be turned over to automation can be communal, but all others must remain capitalist.
Regardless of where we sit on the capitalist/communist spectrum, we're doomed as long as society remains dependent on hierarchical governance. That's why Stalinism failed (the state became the ruling class) and that is why capitalism serves only to funnel wealth from the poor to the rich.
It seems to me that placing all control in the hands of the state would have serious consequences if the state were to fail in some way (war, corruption, economic crisis).
The idea that the state socialist dictatorships of Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia were a result of the pursuit of communism is false; all of those states were designed to be puppets to Moscow or Beijing.
afx
brunbledore
