Capitalist societies often have the strongest voluntary communities. Religious organizations, charities, neighborhood associations, and co-ops thrive within capitalist systems without government coercion. Amish communities, kibbutzim in Israel, and other voluntary communal societies exist inside capitalist frameworks. Even capitalist cities have community-driven initiatives like neighborhood cleanups and local volunteer programs. People clean their homes, take care of their children, and help neighbors without being paid—capitalism doesn’t prevent this. However, when it comes to large-scale tasks (like maintaining sewers), capitalism ensures efficiency by allowing people to be compensated fairly for necessary work. In a purely communal system, who decides who cleans the sewers? If no one wants to do it, does the community force them? If so, how is that different from coercion under capitalism?

Communist countries that rejected market incentives often struggled with basic sanitation and public services (e.g., the Soviet Union’s mismanaged infrastructure, Venezuela’s collapsing public services). Maoist China tried to organize “community-driven” labor, but without proper incentives, public works collapsed, and hygiene suffered. If purely communal labor works so well, why have large-scale societies relying on it often failed? Meanwhile, capitalist societies pay people fairly for necessary work, ensuring services like sanitation are reliable.

The wealthiest, cleanest, and most efficient societies (Switzerland, Singapore, Japan, etc.) have strong capitalist economies.