The original definition is a community where private property is not a thing. Private property is when an individual can control the land, tools, and knowledge people need to survive. Private property is factories, not your toothbrush.

Most pro USSR, PRC, or Cuba leftists believe those countries governments controlling all or the vast majority of private property constitutes communism. Some think these countries are socialist and working their way to communism.

Many anti-communist people don't really understand how these countries work specifically. All their ideas of what communism is are based on how they view the above communist countries.

Finally right wingers will describe California as communist because they have social programs and higher taxes than some states. Basically if the government is intervening in the market by supplying a service or good directly to a citizen that's communism.

From what I've observed most people lie somewhere on this spectrum of definition.

I was kidding around, and part of the joke is how pointless the definition is:

communism: that the assets held by a body are indivisible across the individuals of that body when the assets in question are required to engage in production.

Thereby any definition of "body", "asset" and "production" can be used to define specific types and scopes of a communist ideology.

propaganda: a piece or collection of communications that has the primary purpose to persuade.

communist propaganda: a communication to persuade the reader to share the means of production across a collective.

Nobody actually wants to be Estonia anymore

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

As one of the many types of socialism, communism became the dominant political tendency, along with social democracy, within the international socialist movement by the early 1920s.[34]

Excerpt from ProleWiki:

Its modern usage is almost always traced back to Karl Marx's usage of the term where he introduced the concept of scientific socialism alongside Friedrich Engels. The theory of scientific socialism described communism not as an idealistic, perfect society but rather as a stage of development taking place after a long, political process of class struggle. Marx, however, used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably and he drew no distinction between the two. Lenin was the first person to give distinct meanings to the terms socialism and communism. The socialism/communism of Marx was now known simply as communism, and Marx's "transitional phase" was to be known as socialism.

I knew about this. I just do not really think anyone claiming superiority based on "define socialism and communism" as someone to be taken seriously, given that terminology is dependant on context and definitions on a base level are arbitrary if taking an axiomatic approach to theory.

No, why do you ask?