I would attribute the Soviet problem to be a result of an error by Lenin, not a flaw in communist theory. Lenin thought that after the revolution, there would be peace and communism would flourish. Marx believed that communism in one country was impossible, and it had to be a world-wide phenomenon (like the capitalism).
No incentive to work? People love status. In primitive communist societies (eg, BC natives), status was based on how much food was given by an individual to the rest of the village. People worked hard to provide the most food. I don't know what all this "equality" stuff is about. Don't confuse the abscence of social classes with equality.
No, it is capitalism in the state-administered sense of the word. If it was a free market, you would drop the "state-" from the name.
For state-capitalism to be an outgrowth of "pure communism", the existance of pure communism would be a prerequisite for the emergence of state-capitalism; it clearly is not. If you said state-capitalism was the result of a misguided attempt to accelerate the course of history, I would agree.
needs = desires
If I had to guess, I'd say that ina communist society, what needs you have satisfied would depend largely on status, but that's just a guess. Just for the record, Cuba is not a communist society, and didn't claim to be. It was a 3rd world country (meaning it was "neutral" in the Cold War, NOT poor).
This isn't because it's all you "need", it's because of scarcity. This is not even relevant, since Cuba has a market economy, but a large part of that scarcity is due to economic sanctions, misallocation of natural resources, ineffcient production, and government corruption. Some argue that these problems stem from Cuba becoming a parasitic nation. Rather than satisfying its own needs, it allowed the USSR to do so, in exchange for political and military support. As a mercenary state can't survive without a patron.
Yes, there are fewer scarcities in the US than in Cuba. The government also does unethical things to retain power. This has very little to do with communist theory.
I don't see the justification for these conclusions.
I would be pretty stupid to say that capitalism isn't a good system, and that it hasn't helped advance humanity. It was definately a step up from feudalism. But at some point, capitalism will stop fostering advancement, and will hold back development. This is when socialism will arise, and not a second earlier.
not having classes and forcing equal outcomes are two very different things.
In a free market economy, barring certain circumstances, individuals largely CHOOSE their outcome (I know many will disagree). Property and enforceable property rights make possible a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increase levels of productivity and prosperity. Encroachments on property result in loss of freedom and prosperity (as you probably know first-hand).
Also, a question: why, in your mind, does the Cuban system work (I am assuming you live there by choice and won't be washing up on Miami Beach any time soon)?
The Cuban system worked quite well. Cuba was a mercinary, and did a pretty good job for the USSR in exchange for money, power, prestige, technology, and pretty much anything else it wanted. I left Cuba shortly after Gorbachev's visit, right before the USSR fell. Since the fall of the USSR, the Cuban system has not worked well, for reasons mentioned previously. Moreover, while I believe it has some advantages, I don't think state-capitalism is a particularly effective economic system.
Don't worry about it. I really don't mind defending my position. In fact, I appreciate the challenge, since without it I would never know if my positions are justifiable.