There's never been a socialist country. Communist countries are totalitarian state capitalist societies, where the government serves as a single megacorporation, determining the distribution along much the same model as regular corporations. Real socialism is more like a broad co-op (where the workers collectively own the companies they work for), though there are a lot of variations in scale and other details.

The most successful economies today, in the most stable countries, are a mix of capitalism and a strong social(ist) safety net to prevent people going homeless and dying in the street like stray dogs.

The basis for today's capitalism is largely a rent and speculation economy, where ownership of the means of production substitutes for personal labor; and where money can be made for adding zero value to something (speculation being one method, layoffs being another).

Economies exist as a convenience to the distribution of goods and services based upon the rendering of the same. Trouble occurs when the system is distorted, and some labor is devalued, other labor is overvalued, and money can be attained through schemes that deal in no goods or services at all.

A just society could/would be based upon the elimination of hardship. Whether a rewards based system beyond that is necessary to motivate people is something people too often take for granted, when I think it's up for debate. Many people work to their own financial detriment on their labors of love, or are otherwise motivated by the field of study or work itself, largely oblivious to the financial aspect.

The existence of currency creates a fetish and motive that often drives people to undermine real work and real progress in pursuit of an abstraction, when currency itself becomes the only goal in a person's life. In fact, I think it's arguable that the severe disconnect between currency and the labor it's meant to symbolize and compensate is what enables vast disparities in quality of life to exist. What sort of labor can one perform that then precludes their children from having to work, and their grandchildren, and so on? At that point it's not representative of a person's labor—not the "earner" and not the inheritors—but symptomatic of a logical flaw in the concept on which the economy is founded.

Further, the distribution of currency, running along family lines, and through incestuously small networks of affluent people; and the similar inheritence of hardship and poverty, inhibits the expression of a merit based society. When one person is likely to succeed no matter how much of a fuck up they are, and another is forced to choose between work, school, and taking care of siblings and a sick relative, the playing field becomes skewed beyond any ability to sort the wheat from the chaff either way. There are a ton of rich people who don't deserve to be, and even more poor people who never had a chance to prove themselves.

If I can indulge my purely ideological fantasies, I would much prefer a society without currency, which is based upon affinity and merit. Many people make money so they can pursue their own interests; I say enable them to do what they're best at from the start. There are so many great minds surely rotting away in poverty around the world. It's such a waste. Likewise, resources are rotting in the coffers of the wealthy and mediocre.

The question often comes up in these scenarios, "Who will mop the floors and run the fryers?" Believe it or not, some people do take pride in what others might consider degrading jobs. There is a dignity in being responsible for tasks other couldn't stomach. There are some people who pursue only leisure, and who wouldn't want to work, and perhaps have no motivation or affinity. But I tend to believe those who want pure idleness are in the minority.