crawl, walk, run, fly

The only economic system that works is sending me all your money via western union so I can keep it safe for you.

You forgot the "or else" part.

Except the transitional stage often leads right back to fudalism/oligarchy.

Capitalism is an oligarchy
- Somewhat, but democratic capitalism is a whole lot less oligarchical than straight up oligarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

also 'fudalism' is a funny typo considering this is F.U.D. about socialism and communism
- I don't get how what you linked relates to what I said. Could you clarify?
Name one time when that's happened.
- USSR and China
Elmer Fudalism
Does it? Is Oligarchy just when you have a government but no or little Capitalism?

Any system which requires government coercion over individuals is never going to be feasible because the greedy will always find a way into power. That's why it hasn't worked for communism, and that's why it hasn't worked for capitalism. What we need is a government specifically set up to protect individuals from corporations. The more we can empower individuals and the common worker, the better off we will be. Communism is not the answer to that, neither is capitalism.

Why do you say Communism isn't the answer? It does empower people and the xommon worker and protects individuals from corporations.
- Because every time it has existed it just leads to a huge amount of government power without actually empowering the people. The people may be protected from corporations but they are not protected from their own government.

Go watch some documentsaries about USSR, north korea, khmer rouge, and china then talk. USSR collapsed, Khmer rogue executed 1/4 of its's population and north korea is a nation of brainwashesd people thinking their leader doesn't poop (I don't know enough to talk about China, but they have an economy)

Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
The USSR and China both drastically improved metrics like life expectancy, literacy rates, reduced poverty, eliminated famine, and generally uplifted the poor when compared with Fuedal Russia and Nationalist China. They had numerous issues and tragedies, yes, but overall did very well for its people.
Please find a genuine source saying that North Koreans don't think their leader poops. Or, just watch a video of some Aussies going to North Korea to get a haircut. North Korea is certainly no paradise, but it's also one of the most propagandized against in the western world.
- Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
  I think that's a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.
  The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.
  Also, PolPot wasn't criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80's, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in "deviations from Marxism-Leninism"
  The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.
To be fair, those failed because capitalists took charge claiming to be socialists. Not saying there is a surefire way to prevent that from happening every time.
- That hasn't happend, historically. Unless you mean the Khmer Rouge, but that was more fascist than anything else, and the leadership explicitly rejected Marx.
- Yes, because the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat tears down the checks and balances that usually exist to avoid people grabbing power, and instead attracts power hungry people.
  A democratic gradual implementation of socialism is a much safer was to achieve many of the same outcomes, like what some European countries are doing.