This probably won't help at all and i doubt you want to read it, but here's a paper I did freshman year on Communism as an economic system...
I got a 100, but that means nothing.
The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, states that “…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” The Manifesto continues on to say that, “...nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge... Has not Christianity declaimed against private property...” What this states is that the very basis of Communism as a political system is based around the abolition of private property, and is the right way since it even, according to Marx, follows Christianity. This philosophy has led many to wonder: Why? Why, in an ideal communist state, must there be no private property?
This is according to the Communist's idea of an economic system, where people are equal in status, wealth is equally distributed, and the people work according to how and when the government tells them to. The government owns the country's means of production and sets quotas for essential items such as wheat, vegetables, iron, steel, and any essential products.
Also, since a Communist government would wish to disassociate itself from all practices and signs of capitalism, private property would be one of the first practices to be outlawed, since private property would create a class society and a semblance of inequality, place most of the wealth in the hands of few, and drive people to work for personal profit. In addition, the capitalist society of the United States harbors the belief that the government should be decidedly uninvolved in what goes on in businesses, corporations, and trusts, so long as they do not grow out of control, a practice know as “laissez-faire”.
Since this allows businesses to set their own prices and the market to regulate itself according to competition between businesses, it would enable a corporation, trust, or business to make a huge profit by eliminating almost all competition, furthering the unequal distribution of wealth. In a capitalist society there is also the exploitation of the common worker, or proletariat, by the owners of the factory or industry, known as the bourgeoisie. This exploitation occurs through long hours, unsafe working conditions, and low wages for work, skilled or unskilled.
With the abolition of private property in a Communistic state, there would be no competition between people for money or wealth. There would be no political corruption, because nobody would have the amount of money required in their own pockets to pay off political figures and public servants, and everybody would have equal status in society, because there is no private property or wealth to show off to other lesser peoples or to use to overpower them.
When private property is abolished, the exploitation of workers will stop, because everyone is a worker, and the bosses who owned the private property cannot abuse them with impunity if he does not own the land or factory that they work. Also, since nobody is in control of a business or corporation, corruption in the like of Dennis Kozlowski and the people at WorldCom cannot occur.
Some people in the capitalist society say that without private property, laziness abounds. Since the government will provide every resource needed to survive, the people will not need to work, and therefore won't, they reason. However, the government provides and distributes based on what the people produce. If one person slacks off, this will affect the nation as a whole, because what they produce will have a shortage. The people in a Communist state cannot afford to be lazy any more than capitalists with private property can.
For example, a group of farmers on a collective that produces a quarter of the nation's grain decides that they don't want to work. As a result, there is a shortage, as only 75% of the quota for grain was met, and people will starve as a result of these few workers. These workers would be punished by the government for not fulfilling their due, punishment ranging from being exiled to remote regions, to doing jail time, to death.
Lastly, in real former and present-day Communist states, the government always degenerated into a totalitarian regime, with a dictator and a group of planners or advisers in absolute control over every single aspect of the lives of the people. They control what the people do for a living, they control how much money and how much food they get for the year, they control the amount of production from that group of people. In some instances, such as in the Stalinist USSR, the dictator/dictatorial group can even control what the people think with propaganda such as Stalin's “Five-year plans”.
Adding to these points, dictators usually fear that the people they control will rise up against them one day. With this in mind, a Communist dictator would be even more resolute on the abolition of private property. Without private property, nobody can make a private profit. Without money, people cannot buy weapons, loyalty, or anything they would need for a revolution. Without the essentials, a revolution cannot sustain itself and will fall apart, which ensures the dictator or ruler remains in power.
In conclusion, the abolition of private property in a Communist state, ideal or not, is necessary. Not only is it one of the most fundamental parts of Communism as a political system, it also, in an ideal state, will protect workers from exploitation, remove barriers between the social classes of the poor and the rich, protect from corruption in political and business-related areas, create a system where laziness will be almost nonexistent, and usually most important, ensure that the rulers or the government of that state or country remain in power.
EDIT: By definition, any country that calls itself Communist is a socialist country... Communism is the political ideal, socialism is just the economic system they happen to take to an extreme. At least, that's what they taught me, and if they're wrong, I have a school to sue.
Correct me if I'm wrong though. Don't want you to fail an important college assignment based on some advice a sophmore in high school gave you. 
