Communism, as Marxist-Leninist-troskyist-Maoists etc..Never existed, but Marx based his theory on an industrial reinterpretation of what he called, "primitive communism," or the egalitarianism (also largely anti-authoritarian) of hunter-gather-horticulturalists. Some anthropologists refer to these cultural norms as "fierce communalism." The thing is, in these societies, there is great deal of personal autonomy, but also an deep awareness of the essential mutuality and reciprocity of humans and nature to thrive. Marx thought that communism could not just come into being, but that first we would have to go through socialism. Socialism is governed by the simple axiom, from each according to their ability to each according to their work. People have been made simultaneously greedy and lazy by explotatitive class relations, and the self organization of the workers in political control could correct this through jurisprudence. Then, once everyones material need are met, garauntee d through state coercion, then new cultural norms would emerge, and the state would "wither away." By Marx's own definition of communism, it is also anarchism, only one must wait to be "purified" by the state in the hands of organized class concious workers. Russia, China, Cuba, etc were only ever, in theory and practice socialists. The anarchists wanted to go straight for full liberation, personal autonomy within social solidarity and mutual aid. Marx didnt really want to do anything at all because the forces of economics would simple make it happen on an article of faith, but Engles talked him into supporting working peoples organizations and formed the first international, which eventually purged the Anarchists even though they were the primary organizers and activists...So, in essence, communism is more real than other theories, just without Marx's magical thinking. Capitalism is simply a system where those who control capital (ie the means of production, and wealth in its other culturally specific forms: currency etc), and we most certainly see this. Free markets on the other hand? Well, the modern nation state and capitalism emerged deeply entwined. Trully free markets would have to be something entirely different from capitalism. David Graeber in his book Debt: the first 5000 years, that the early Arabic traders were an example of a non-state market economy but it only functioned because of the extremely deeply engrained concept of maintaining an honorable name, and that everyone knew of everyone else, so anynomity was greatly reduced, and a softer form of coercion, through economic shunning and shaming were practiced.