Let's say, the system is 99% automated and it produces the goods to satisfy the 'basic needs' according to Ramil.

Say, I go to the store to get a bottle of vodka and meet Ramil in the same store. So, we start chatting and then discover Hanna is not in the store to pick up her daily fresh flower basket. It turned out Hanna got sick that day and the flower basket got delivered to her right to her doorstep (by automation, I guess). So, then I start asking: why do I have to get up and go to the store to get vodka? Ah, says Ramil, that's because that's not your basic need, since you can go to the store yourself. So, for you that would just be a comfort. And the comfort cannot be satisfied by definition, since there's never limits to the comfort. But, then I say: ok, but the store is closer to me than to Ramil, so Ramil would normally go an extra mile, meaning the location adds more value to me than to Ramil. Are you ok with that, Ramil? He would say, of course I'm not, I think I should live closer to the store because I'm doing sports for fun and I get tired more than Crocodile who is only writing poems all day long, also for fun. In the end, we all agree that there's no social justice until the food is delivered right to the doorstep of both Ramil's and mine.

And after that basic need is satisfied, we start wondering about who is going to cook for us? The freely delivered food tastes bad and not healthy, and both of us can't cook, so should we be going on destroying our health and writing worse poems and achieving worse results in sports than we could? No, we want the delicious and healthy food for both of us! And that would be another basic needs. So, let's say that is resolved by the automation. The next one is the orientation. Hanna is getting more sun, because her apartment faces the South, and Ramil's and mine are facing the North. Getting enough sun is a healthy issue and therefore is basic need. So, me and Ramil applied and got the automated parabolic outside mirrors which reflect the sun delivering some of it into our apartments. Then a new issue arises.. and so on. There's never end even to the so-called 'basic needs'.

And then, the bigger issue starts to loom: the socially just wealth distribution. Say, you have 7 people and 3 pieces of bread. So, Ramil says: there cannot be Communism in that case! The basic needs would have to be satisfied by automation. Ok, so let's do that and change the question: there are 7 people and 11 pieces of bread. Who gets the pieces and how many? Based on what?

Since, both of the problems (the satisfaction of the basic needs and the socially just distribution) cannot really be solved fairly, the Communism implementation according to Ramil is not feasible. There may be more Communism or less Communism, but there never could be THE Communism. What do you think of that?