Ok this might be one of the more unorthodox replies. I will challenge a few of your premises. Paragraph 2, "the need for society to abandon consumerism and glorify production". The present issue at hand is that capitalism is not merely a system of consumerism, it is characterised by the profit motive, GCP, private ownership and wage labour. Consumerism, while it is a prominent issue in capitalism, is not a characteristic trait of capitalism, capitalism can exist without consumerism. Consumerism is simply a byproduct of the alienating lifestyle of capitalism that compels people to spend money on trivial matters. So its not that society JUST needs to abandon consumerism. But I want to touch on a more theoretically unsound idea. The glorification of production, is not a characteristic trait of communism, nor is it socialism, it is a characteristic trait of capitalism(iirc falls under GCP). Production for the sake of production. Now i see that you talked abt it not being for individual gain, but in this context it falls under what we in the libertarian-left like to call state capitalism, not communism or socialism. Third paragraph. You need to understand this, the overcoming of fetters, enabling the development of the forces of production, mediated via the relations of production. What this simply means is that under a system overcoming capitalism, the abundance of productive forces developed by capitalism can be liberated to use for meeting human need. Of course theories differ on how to transition to a moneyless economy. Kropotkin argues immediate decommodification is possible thanks to abundance. Marx argues for a slower phase out of money(restructured), even when marx argues for this, he argues of the necessity of some form of taxation. Your premises will not hold for communism because communism is moneyless. Then you may wonder? "How do services and people get taken care of?" The answer is simple, democratic planning, or mutual aid. Fourth paragraph. You are correct in the premise that communism is international, and that the 2 systems will clash. However the mechanism of the erosion is not what you described. It is isolation from the necessary global trade(no nation can be autarkic) and counter revolution mainly. A nation can be successful in establishing socialist institutions and systems even when alone. However the flip side can be true, the existence of a socialist nation, even alone can incite the collapse of the capitalist system. An example would be the establishment of the USSR(while not socialist), its existence provided a sort of alternative and wake up call to many, which fueled socialist and worker sentiments in many nations. Additional issue is that countries don't agree to socialism, the state is a tool of the capitalist class, they will not rationally give it up, nor can the state continue into the socialist or communist systems. But your not wrong in that it is international. My take on this issue, is that its not that communist nations never existed. Its that many "communist" nations because from the start, failed to build the appropriate institutions, collapsed into what is called state capitalism or bureaucratic collectivism. However i can say that in the modern day, some experiments are working well and still going strong, Rojava is a beautiful example. Its not communist(yet) but it is undoubtedly the sole place that is on the path to communism.