If you look at it empirically, attempts to make wealth equal and/or resentment that a small portion of people have "too much" wealth has led to a lot of misery in human history. We only have to look at Stalin and the USSR, Mao and China, Pol Pot and Cambodia, and more currently Chavez and Venezuala. This thinking has also been responsible for a lot of the anti-Semitism throughout history as well.
I think instead of trying to make wealth equal, we should focus on making people's lives better.
Secondly, can it not be possible that both communism and capitalism are bad?
Thirdly, can't we make people's lives better without awarding 40% of the wealth to 1% of the people, and 22% to 0.1% (2012)?
Fourthly, it's not simply about money, because that could be easier to ignore, if it were true that everyone, including those on the bottom, were better off. But money is power. In other words, democracy is thoroughly undermined. All one has to do is see how much money is poured into politicians' coffers and by whom, and for what purpose. Or see that you can't become president without getting $1 billion dollars of "donations" for your campaign. Is it one person one vote or one dollar one vote?
I'm chewing on his notions for worker self-directed enterprises. Having used democratic decision making processes with great results, I've been keen to learn what others are doing.
As a criticism of communism, that's not even close to an empirical look. It relies heavily on misattribution fallacy and offers no control sample for reference. e.g. if we agreed that Stalin killed 100 million people and that it was because of communism, what's a reference number of people killed by capitalist agents because of capitalism?
I think instead of trying to make wealth equal, we should focus on making people's lives better.