Not to support communism as a plausible solution, but all "communist" countries were what we call "state capitalist". Communism is "worker control of the means of production" not "state control of the means of production". Communism ideologically doesn't have the "centralised" ownership of everything that you are referring to. But all "Actually Existing Socialist" countries like Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, etc... did have that centralisation.

All I'm saying is that when you see people advocating for leftist, progressive, social democratic, or "communist" ideas none of them are talking about state ownership of all industry.

Hey man maybe don't compare situations we aren't in and face the fact that capitalism has failed once again. Think way back when you played monopoly as a kid, how did every game end? Even a boot smoocher like you should be able to comprehend this simple equation.

Alternatively, learn the meaning of words.

I just don't see any so-called communist countries without literally the exact same problems

This comic refers to wealth inequality and appropriation of wealth by an owner class. This is not what happened in communist countries despite what CIA propaganda would have us believe. The top 1% in the USSR only had about 4% of the total income, compared to 20%ish for modern, capitalist Russia and similar figures for USA and such. Also the top earners were not corrupt bureaucrat politicians, but highly trained professionals like university professors, prominent artists, and other members of the intelligentsia. Similar figures are true for communist Cuba, Maoist China, etc.

Communism can be the most democratic system. For example, Vietnam is right now starting a process of dismantling a lot of bureaucracy and state power and to give power to local communes to have budgetary decisions, administrative power, etc. Luna Oi, a member of the Vietnamese communist party and a youtuber, has a very recent video talking about it.

I think the so-called communist countries in the 20th century (like the soviet union) failed mostly because they didn't motivate enough people to work hard enough.

The 20th century was a time of much innovation, where lots of growth was required to keep pace with the ideas people had. So, for growth you need hard-working people to do it. Capitalism had that because harder working people got higher wages. In communism "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us".

Nowadays, the situation would be very different because we don't have so much growth anymore, so there's less demand for human workers. So even if we can't motivate that many people to work hard, it would mostly be fine because we don't need so many people to work in the first place ...