Enoughness of recourses after abolishing capitalism

[Kurgg]

It's a fact that people in Western countries at the moment use more recourses than Earth has, while the majority lives a life of poverty and shortage. How are we going to ensure that after the abolition of capitalism everyone can live a good life? Does abolition of capitalism and establishing the need-based economy mean that the living standards are going to drop in Western countries? Does the productivity rise, if leftist economic policies are applied? Is there any concretical studies or other materials about this?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There's a lot to consider in the distribution of resources throughout the world when considering the destruction of capital and the establishment of a society based on the concept of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. When we look at some of the very basic resources in society, we realise just how wasteful capitalism can be. We produce roughly 2.5 times the food necessary to provide for the average male adult recommended calorie intake for the entire world population. The necessary economic input to provide everyone in the world with the infrastructure for clean drinking and washing water is approximately $10 billion every year for ten years whilst the yearly income of bottled water companies is approximately $12 billion. So we could, potentially, provide enough food, provide the resources to develop our infrastructure, and develop the distribution and organisations needed to ensure that everyone in the world gets far more than they could possibly need.

And yet, we live in a society in which tonnes of grain goes to rot every year because it is not profitable to distribute, where people drink foul water because it's more profitable to sell water in bottles than to invest in the development of infrastructure, we live in a society where some starve and some are clinically obese. When a lot of socialists look at things like 'productivity' in the economy, it quickly becomes irrelevant. Society is productive enough to provide for everyone in the world a decent, or perhaps even an excellent, standard of living but what holds us back is the distribution of those resources and the profit margins that restrict access to those who need it.

The standard of living in one small section of the world won't drop, the standard of living, the well-being of our mind and souls as well as of our bodies, can only increase with the freedom and access that communism would bring us.

[GoddamVegetarianCommie]

There's a lot to consider in the distribution of resources throughout the world when considering the destruction of capital and the establishment of a society based on the concept of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. When we look at some of the very basic resources in society, we realise just how wasteful capitalism can be. We produce roughly 2.5 times the food necessary to provide for the average male adult recommended calorie intake for the entire world population. The necessary economic input to provide everyone in the world with the infrastructure for clean drinking and washing water is approximately $10 billion every year for ten years whilst the yearly income of bottled water companies is approximately $12 billion. So we could, potentially, provide enough food, provide the resources to develop our infrastructure, and develop the distribution and organisations needed to ensure that everyone in the world gets far more than they could possibly need.

Do you have a source you can link me for this?
(I'm not doubting you, I read a while ago that Oxfam calculated that it would take about $240bn to end world hunger and that was the combined income of the 100 richest people in 2012, I'm just interested)