If we're going to discuss the term, none of that is actual theoretical communism.
The founders of the USSR were adamant that true communism wasn't achievable without first going through all their bullshit committee rule authoritarian stages.
As for socialism, there's another heavily abused overly broad term used to sweep all manner of not actually good for the people systems under a label.
Many G20 countries have sound implementations of good social policy that in countries such as the USofA would be described as "far left", "socialism", or even "communism".
I'm no fan of the USSR, post USSR, CCP states .. but it feels very odd to call them communist when they're so much at odds with self-governance, local communal control, and so many of the things discussed as communism prior to the October Revolution.
Communism was what people wanted, a boot on the neck was what they got.
People wanted Communism in great many countries. Easily a couple dozen of them? It ended with terror or at least tyrany in every single case. It shows that communism is actually impossible to attain and will morph into tragedy every single time. It makes sense - introduction of communism requires a violent and radical revolution. People who are twisted enough to be willing to try that, the Robespierres and the Lenins, are actually tyrants at heart, and they will never let go of power once they attain it. This pattern has repeated over and over again through history.
You are conflating 'violent revolution' with 'communism'.
Typically ALL revolutions end badly, ala 'Robespierre'. NOT just communist revolutions.
Also typically, almost everyone in the USA, since the US had one of the very few examples of a successful revolution (geography helped), think that revolutions are a great thing, a big party, everyone should do it.
After/throughout WW1-WW2 a lot of people were oppressed, poor, and pissed enough to revolt, and during that period there were a lot of ideas we lump into 'communism'. So, this ferment of anger, seeded with the common ideas of the time, lead to a lot of communist revolutions.
But most revolutions fail, that isn't indictment of the original ideas.
At the time, even Woodrow Wilson's 14-points, would sound like Communism to todays American. In democracy, everyone gets a vote, in todays America, even that is too communist.
The founders of the USSR were adamant that true communism wasn't achievable without first going through all their bullshit committee rule authoritarian stages.
As for socialism, there's another heavily abused overly broad term used to sweep all manner of not actually good for the people systems under a label.
Many G20 countries have sound implementations of good social policy that in countries such as the USofA would be described as "far left", "socialism", or even "communism".
I'm no fan of the USSR, post USSR, CCP states .. but it feels very odd to call them communist when they're so much at odds with self-governance, local communal control, and so many of the things discussed as communism prior to the October Revolution.
Communism was what people wanted, a boot on the neck was what they got.