
No they don’t either. Pure laissez-faire capitalism also devolves due to it being too utopian. Smithian markets operate on the underlying principle that humans will keep competition fair. They don’t. Humans are greedy. As with most things in life, a balance or moderation is key. In both scenarios, the haves separate themselves from the have-nots, it’s just under two different methods. Both almost always revert to authoritarianism.
No country is communist. There are countries with more wealth redistribution policies and publicly funded utilities like energy, water, healthcare, education, etc. Sometimes these systems work well, sometimes they don’t. I wouldn’t say that public healthcare or education is blanket BAD or GOOD, it just depends how it’s operated and what resources they have access to
There are a plethora of people who would argue you to death that there are and have been “communist” countries. Wealth distribution is fine, social programs are fine, they work best in tandem with some form of democracy. You just have to ensure the checks on each part of the government operate as they should. This was somewhat possible in the US before the lobbyist era took over, and money started to dominate politics more than it had prior. The entire New Deal was American Social Democracy.
No those are two completely different systems of governance. The former seeks to use democracy to temper and control capitalism (regulated markets) and create a social welfare state. The latter seeks to replace capitalism with socialism and elect leaders through democratic systems.