What I learned from my uncle, (a communist) and from reading Fanshen, and from having a Marxist anthropology teacher in university, is that nothing in this world is simple. Imperialist China had a wealth distribution of 1% owning 99% while the remaining 99% owned 1%. (Many would put it even worse) At the grassroots level, with Mao, that all changed. It got somewhat more balanced out, so the Chinese peasant wasn't dying of starvation, and could at least eat without his labour turning into opulence for the emperor and his henchmen. Some theorists would say that that level of wealth distribution is what capitalism ends up at at its destination. I personally don't believe that because I do also believe that man does have a social conscience, and has difficulty watching other men starve. The oft repeated motto presented in Fanshen was "Who should benefit from our labour?" (I think the answer, for most, is obvious.
OTOH, my uncle was accused of laziness because the Canadian state would take care of him, certain people take advantage of socialist states, any government, capitalist or communist alike can be corrupt, and there are downfalls to all things. In many ways man is still a selfish uncaring creature and until that basic stuff changes, we are stuck with complexity in all things political.
But I reminded my cousin with his 'Communism is bad" simplistic motto, that the root word of communism and community is the same word. We are all on the RF community, a version of communism, albeit a simplified one.
A decent method for comparing countries for wealth distribution is the gini coeffiecient.
Gini coefficient - Wikipedia