Yeah true, I don't deny that, I'm even so pessimistic, to say that even if we have a benevolent dictator giving up dictatorship when the goal has been achieved, that the system is too unstable to exist for a longer time...

So IMO while we should navigate towards a system that is very close to communism, we should probably at least factor in game theory, and try to avoid means that are fundamentally opposed to communism (or at least anarchism), like autocratism (as we have seen multiple times in the past).

That is why I said "doesn't fit human nature". At least on a bigger scale, probably too much encoded "survival of the fittest" (group of humans if you will) , that seems to clash with real communism (when trying to explain it based on evolutionary terms). This can and does work on a smaller scale though (might've even be a thing evolutionary, hunter gatherers etc.).

Btw. Reality is already more nuanced, as there's no pure *ism, it's almost always a spectrum of various idiologies. Even USA, although it's probably closest to what most understand of "capitalism".

USA is a sad example of propaganda, probably because of late stage capitalism messing with the reward system (e.g. social networks), leading to among other things, polarity...

Communism is about fully collectivized economy globally

quoting wiki:

A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]

For me the result is among others anarchism (absence of state/money). Anarchism itself is probably not communism per se, but I consider it a part of "full communism".

absolutely fits with human nature, which itself is malleable and depends on given material conditions.

I really would like that to be true, but I don't see how... As I said, we never had anything close to it, whereas we had/have something very close to pure capitalism (looking at you USA...), fairly stable (not a good thing, IMO, as we see especially currently with climate-change and growing inequality). Also for China: autocratic State-capitalism (mostly at least), probably better than whatever USA currently is, but still capitalism, and definitely not communism.

What I meant with "doesn’t fit in human nature" is basically described in https://lemmy.world/post/50376887/25196710 So yes for small-scale, very likely no at (especially) a global scale... The egoism and hunger of power of a few manipulative individuals will likely always prevent this unfortunately, also the "fear" of foreign stuff (like people/migrants), and the difference of global (natural) wealth, like fertile soil etc. I think having social contact with most people within such a society is almost a requirement (i.e. trusting individuals of the society), which is why I don't see how we can achieve something like that globally, distrust and (often irrational) fear is probably the deal-breaker per se for that.