In rereading your statement again, I believe what you are saying is that in Acts the church had all things in common and later they began to institutionalize. I still think your premise is wrong. Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, wanted to appear that they were giving everything they had. But Peter told them that there wasn’t any need for such a sacrifice. I think you’re reading far more into scripture than what is there.
Every institution on earth is created by God for His good will and purpose. There are plenty of these institutions that are not godly institutions.
Well, no, Peter told them that they lied to God/the Holy Ghost, in that their sin was that they claimed to give all but did not: they wanted their cake- the fellowship and security of that covenantal society - and eat it too, being covetous lying idolaters in keeping back profits under the pretension of surrendering their goods for the common-wealth in Christ as the rest did.
This surrendering of goods under the leadership of manifest unselfish apostles of God (who did mighty miracles) was a testimony to their faith, love and commitment to God and each other, in which they basically burned their bridges back to their former life as pilgrims in a foreign land.
This is not a statement that mandates all Christians to literally do as the first organic church did, or condemns capitalism, but requires honesty in the church. This is necessary for true and intimate relationships with the Lord and each other, and to tolerate this manner of blatant dishonesty made a mockery of the holy innocent new community, and would have had a destructive effect if it were not exposed and judged. it would be worse than a mole among POWs.
We do not understand it because we expect that, and dissension. How many in the church could you entrust your life, wife and family with?
However, the context and men here is not as in Communism, nor was this model one that remained, but like a seminary type situation, it was preparatory to being sent out.