What I am telling you is that any ruling system that uses violence to attain its goals cannot be communism by the definition of people that were there when the word was being defined for the modern era.
Marx was a tool of the banks.
Bakunin split with him in 1868.
The definition you are using is the bankster definition.
You know marx's name because the banksters want you to know his name.
The same reason you know this book, but not this one.
The bohlsheviks, the propagators and popularizers of the definition you use, coopted the rhetoric of communism, but ruled as authoritarians, the antithesis of working together to improve the common lot in life.
You can read about how that played out on the battlefield in this book: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-the-unknown-revolution-1917-1921-book-one-birth-growth-and-triumph-of-the-revolution.
Tyranny is the opposite of communism.
the ruling party was called the Romanian Communist Party, their words not mine. I may not fit your definition of a clown, but if I call myself a clown and others start calling me a clown, then ... you get the point :)
Yes, yes, clowns get to clown around, but politics is serious bidness!
All rule making is a word war, definitions are important.
They hid the doorway out.
Quite devious of them.
It's like cognitive dissonance, unless you are aware of the concept, your chances of being a victim are higher.