You should probably actually read the ideas behind it before just spewing things out. In communist -principle-, your labor is directed, not stolen. You maintain professions and have it retooled to benefit the whole of society. Supply and demand still exists, it's just monitored and tweaked by the state to maintain the highest standard of living for the maximum amount of people. This has never been carried out successfully (though mormons in early Utah actually did a pretty damn good job of it). The purpose is more to eliminate social castes/classes than equalize pay (edit: To clarify, wealth redistribution shouldn't exist, because the purpose of wealth is supposed to be obsolete in a well-functioning system where everyone benefits from all production and trade). Likewise, the idea is for the arts to flourish, since there's no such thing as 'the struggling artist'.
Capitalism itself has inherent flaws and proneness to corruption/manipulation. If you believe we have a well-functioning capitalism in the United States, you should actually read The Wealth of Nations. Ya know. The book by Adam Smith that describes it. We've actually deviated pretty far from it, and it's not due to regulation, it's due to incentives for resisting the open flow of currency. A true capitalism depends on the same drive we have to push into the life of luxury, but makes the general assumption that most will fall short but not devastatingly so. Our current state has shifted away from production and into services that have to provide for a lot of people, allowing for amenities but also allowing for vast exploitation of the working class. We've enjoyed a lot of success due to government spending, i.e. the government directing production and research via grants and contracts. That's not a capitalist behavior, but it's working to our benefit.
I think capitalism is probably the greatest innovation that humanity has come up with, to date, because it rewards incentives towards individual gain which resonates with people -as they were-. If the majority of the populace becomes more in tune with thinking of the whole, then it becomes more and more dysfunctional, as there are less people engaging in the motivations it depends on. Really, it comes down to whether or not you trust the private sector's (and common citizen's) desire for personal gain to be more trustworthy than the state's responsibility to provide for people, and those will vary drastically with people's experiences and perceptions. (edit here: I should note that I don't support 'pushes' for socialism/communism, but I do recognize that there will be a slide in that direction as more and more people inevitably 'fall off the bottom rung' of a dysfunctional capitalism; at some point or another, there will be a change in thought as efficiency becomes the determining factor of profit. Automation makes sense. So does cutting down the fat on the workforce. Entrepreneurship, the arts, and cultural endeavors all spring out of this, as long as they are taken care of during that time, which falls on either the state, the populace, or wealthy patrons. People need to realize that historically speaking, some of the biggest leaps in our capabilities were not born from monetary incentive, but idle hands that were allowed to pursue their interests rather than someone else's.)
So really, I'm kinda meh on your distaste for the book. People being more aware of alternatives really ain't bothering me none. I'm pro-education in all forms, so long as you can filter through the propoganda on both sides and learn how to investigate.
Side note: You brought up Stalin, because he was an absolute travesty. I'm not sure you're aware of how distasteful he was to the proponents of socialism/communism at the time, and how hard Lenin actually worked in his final years to try to prevent him from coming to power. Using him as the poster child actually equivocates to using Mussolini as a poster child for capitalism, because you again seem to be mixed up: Fascist states are capitalist dictatorships.