Man, why must it ALWAYS be a paradigm of two with you? OK, OK, I'll attempt to make this as concise as possible.
My contention, one that is shared by many other academics, is that capitalism has NOT failed. In fact, it is functioning as it should - further polarizing the rich and the poor, while diminishing the middle class.
From the article: "Marx theorized that the capitalist system would inevitably impoverish the masses as the world?s wealth became concentrated in the hands of a greedy few, causing economic crises and heightened conflict between the rich and working classes. 'Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole,' Marx wrote."
Again, I would never profess to be a Marxist scholar. One could spend their entire career writing on, working and explaining just one of his works, even just one of his chapters, that's how complex it truly is. So my understanding of Marx is, admittedly, lacking and superficial at best.
However, getting back to your question, it's not a matter of capitalism failing (which I've already addressed) nor communism succeeding. Because ultimately, capitalism is first and foremost an economic theory (albeit implicated and working in conjunction with democracy), while communism is a political state (albeit implicated and working in conjunction with socialism - for the most part). So if you really wanted to make a comparison, then you would have to compare capitalism with socialism. And if this were the case, I would argue that despite what many would have us believe, REAL socialism (on a grand scale) has never been implemented. Instead, what we've witnessed are variations of socialism wherein far too many (rich) people still possessed power over others. So yes, I would agree that these scenarios have ultimately failed - as they should - but have never been indicative of what real socialism should/could be.
Off the top of my head, effective smaller scale examples of socialism include the Philly Socialists (who, among other things, provide free ESL classes to those that want/need it), smaller communities that have reverted back to a simple trading system, etc.
And getting back to Marx, many of his theories have come to fruition. Look at reification and commodity fetishism - I would argue that most people nowadays are unable to distinguish between simple need and want, not to mention the magical and supernatural attributes that we have since ascribed on to commodities of all kinds!
And what about the whole idea of becoming distanced from what we actually produce? Not only is this true, but (I would argue) also extends to the things that we want. We are so far removed from their production that many of us no longer question how things come to being. It doesn't take much, but a quick study will reveal that far too many things are created unethically in one way or another.
Look, I'm not even saying that socialism is the be all and end all. And attempting to shift dominant ideology and common perceptions will be extremely difficult. However, what I do know is that as it stands right now, as it has for countless centuries, the majority of us are still functional slaves to those that truly hold the power.
Let me end this with two questions. When feudalism ended, what do you think happened to those (kings, lords, etc.) that held power at the time? And what happened to their respective fortunes?
Peace!
