You present a very typical argument against communism. But it's reflective of a misunderstanding of communist class theory. See, Marx was big on equality and all that, but it wasn't his most important contribution. No, Marx (and Proudhon and Cohen) should be credited for explaining that private property isn't a natural occurrence, and that it facilitates generation of profit.
If you go back to, say, 1 million BC, you would have found that everything was free - you just needed to access it. But then rulers privatized it, and bourgeois revolutions later seized it for capitalists; that's where we are today. Owners of property have denied universal access to a basic standard of living (which could exist in a modern context through communitarian social models). It's known that the natural world was not always something to be paid for. Its access was open to all the world's cooperative mini-societies, provided they were of appropriate human capacity. And this sort of universality of property can, and should be applied to a modern context. Not only because it's just, but also due to the exploitative state of modern property systems.
Unfortunately, capitalism has these troubling things called profits and non-productive classes. To allow their existence (in a competitive consumer market), producers need to take cuts in their income, the difference between their productive value and their wages comprising the share of wealth allocated to the aforementioned. This, at its core, is exploitation.
