Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production, such as mines and factories, are owned and controlled by the public.
Whether or not wracked by guilt the capitalist must act as a ruthless exploiter. Tens of thousands of enterprises inform planners of their productive capabilities and input requirements; millions of consumers communicate their consumption preferences. Under socialism, by contrast, workers have private ownership over their wages or, in a money-less economy, over resources for personal use and collective ownership over the social surplus they produce.
Also, one needs to notice that their socialized version of capitalism can prosper only because they tap into the innovation engine of the worldwide free market. The first is economic.
Campers acting on this motivation value both sides of the conjunction. Nevertheless, this leaves us with a puzzle. On a broad understanding, in which morality, or perhaps better to say ethics, is concerning with the idea of living well, it seems that communism can be assessed favourably in this light.
In place of a capitalist economy, in which individuals compete for profits, moreover, party leaders established a command economy in which the state controlled property and its bureaucrats determined wages, prices, and production goals. Socialists take a lot of pride and satisfaction from forming and implementing policies that change the world, presumably for the better.
The problem is that we can ask what it is that makes it the case that an economic structure will only persist for as long as it develops the productive forces. Whether they will succeed in this endeavour remains to be seen.
The goal of a Leninist party is to orchestrate the overthrow of the existing government by force and seize power on behalf of the proletariat, and then implement a dictatorship of the proletariat, a kind of direct democracy in which workers hold political power through local councils known as soviets.