Mods do not delete my thread, I am not here to break any rules

Yeah mods delete the thread.

read a book for once in your life or kys faggot

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

The guy you’re talking to sounds like he doesn’t understand business startup and development very well, but I’ll answer your first part because the rest is too long and addressing what looked like a bad point

There isn’t anything morally wrong with it, it’s a matter of whether the economy is “rational” and what groups benefit, and what distinctions there are between the groups that benefit and those that don’t. For Marx and Marxists, the capitalist economy is fundamentally flawed and unstable. It concentrates wealth increasingly and experiences periodic crises with the possibility always there for an especially damaging one when multiple contradictions have reached a breaking point. The especially bad crises can result in war and revolution. Its logic creates the conditions for it to be undone by the very mass of people who are most vulnerable to the crises. That is the basics. There are leftists who are driven primarily by a moral feeling, and Marx and Engels certainly loathed many bourgeois values (Engels called some of the businessmen he rubbed shoulders with in England “philistines” and other insults), but fundamentally Marxism isn’t about who should or shouldn’t do this or that. It was Marx’s theory that capitalist society was unstable and held within it the germ of what would come out of the revolutionary chaos during its crises. He identified the proletariat as the revolutionary class caught in the gears and being ground up by capitalist contradictions. It’s presumed to be in their self-interest to oppose capitalist accumulation, austerity, global imperial war etc. and we literally see this. Even the right wing takes on these causes because it clearly is in the self-interest of the average person to oppose them, albeit obviously marxists think they are misguided in their conclusions that they just need white bourgeoisie etc.

This stuff is rather obvious if you're familiar with the Marxist critique of capitalism, but here's the simplest answer I can think of:
The problem with money is that it is freely transferable, and this means clever people can start accumulating it without producing value themselves. With labor vouchers, we're able to give people that produce value a strong assurance that their labor is going to a good end (i.e. another socially productive worker, or someone with genuine reasons not to work), and not into the pockets of some exploitative capitalist.

(me)
You can understand this on a purely emotional level. Say you're working in a shop. What would make you happier about your work?
(1.) You're handing out commodities to people who have managed manipulate others into giving them money. This is what your boss wants you to do as part of his scheme to manipulate people into giving him money. He rewards you for the task with only a part of the money you're bringing in, simply because he owns the place and you don't.
(2.) You're handing out rewards to people holding vouchers verifying that they've either done some good work for the community, or are being maintained by the community because you've collectively decided this to be a moral imperative. This is part of the duty you are expected to perform for your fellow workers, and makes you eligible for rewards as well.

The first alienates people, the second makes them enthusiastic about their job.
It's all about giving power to the workers rather than those who are clever at playing the property game.

This is true of bullshit McCommunist states, which we would call "state capitalist." If they are actually structured to be democratic or anarchic so that the people are in charge, then there is no ruling class. The whole point is to get rid of that, and it has turned out (as Bakunin predicted) that if you have a vanguard trying to lead people to communism, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to being capitalism again.
This wouldn't even be a thing in communism because everyone's the same class. You either get back what you put in or you get what you need (depending on how developed the system is). If there is a way to be socially mobile, to change your position so that you get a proportionally bigger return, then you are not in a communist system.

Just gonna post some basic pamphlets. If OP is serious about understanding communism, these are a good place to start. They're like 100 pages total.

How do you expect to le BTFO communism if you don't have the slightest clue what that word means? OP is a faggot and so are you.