Everything you said is correct! There was just a few details I didn't have in my post that make it slightly confusing. "Spreading the work as evenly as possibl

Everything you said is correct! There was just a few details I didn't have in my post that make it slightly confusing. "Spreading the work as evenly as possible" and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" differs because people's ability is different, and because the work itself is not interchangeable (specialization and what not). This is more of a technicality than anything else, because the former might imply that everyone has to be doing similar work (in term of wealth producing efficiency, time working etc). Getting rid of the possibility to exploit workers by the possession of the means of production by a small elite is definitely the overarching motivation for communism. I can't remember it right now, but I think there is a line of practical reasoning that leads to the principle mentioned (which is to says that for practical purpose, one will lead to another). I will have to look it up. Marxism (at least the motivation and principle mentioned above) by itself definitely doesn't implies centralization! It's unfortunately that this the insight is often missed by people. However, according to Marx, to get to communism, we have to transition through socialism first, which is the abolish of private ownership for major means of production (in Socialism society, means of production is owned by public enterprise, as opposed to being held in common in Communism society). This step poses a centralization issue (as the power that be won't relinquish their power), and inefficiency is just a byproduct of centralization (because of corruption and lack of creative destruction, mostly). We have not found a way to transition directly to communism from a capitalism society (assuming that communism is desirable).