You evidently haven't read the paper, so why do you think you know what Communism even is? Marx railed against "equalitarians." From Critique of the Gotha Programme:

But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labour in the same time, or can work for a longer time; and labour, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labour. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity of the worker as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right ot inequality, in its content, like every right. Right by its very nature can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by the same standard in so far as they are brought under the same point of view, are taken from one definite side only, for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers, and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labour, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right instead of being equal would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but itself life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Moreover, famines were ended by the Soviet Union, when they were common under the Tsarist regime. Industrializing and collectivizing improved crop yields and solved the issues of famine that plagued the Tsarist Russia.

Please, if you're going to have an opinion on something, at least do the barest research of the subject rather than imagining a narrative. You can start with my introductory Marxist reading list.

1. "Under comunism every one is equal" No. It follows the "from each according to their capabilities, to each according to their needs" idea

2. The "phenomenon" you describe is not the cause nor related to the causes of famines within the Soviet Union or China.

3. Compare "production output" from pre-soviet to Soviet Russia. It was one of the most rapid and dramatic increase in productive output in known history. The first 5 year plan saw gross industrial output increase by 118%.

4. "It also creates parallel economies of bribes and favours because well connected and productive people still want to be above every one else, this gives unfair advantage mafias and criminals." That very accurately describes the post soviet kleptocracy and modern Russian capitalist state.

5. "In my opinion, no pure system is good if it's comunusim or capitalism. You have to have a bit of everything" then it stops being communist or capitalist at that point but something else entirely like socialist, syndicalist, communalist, etc. putting every possible form of socioeconomic organization on a capitalist-communist spectrum is extremely reductionist.

Overall wildly inaccurate, uninformed and heavily biased take. Second paragraph shows you have good opinions and solid instincts, you should work on making them a bit more informed.

You must be getting hit by tankies, because this is a perfectly reasonable post.

I worked for a unioned grocery company for many years and there were no merit based raises, because they were negotiated years in advance and dictated by the union contract. Getting any discretionary effort was incredibly rare and difficult, because why am I going to do more and get paid trash wages for it? I'm not saying that's the right way to think, but it's prevelant regardless.

Communism has only ever meant full public ownership and central planning in Marxism. State communism is communism.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that was actually the case. This would still be a demonstrably better situation. Under private ownership of capital, the purpose of work is to produce profit for the business owners with any social value produced being strictly incidental. Meanwhile, with state owned enterprise the purpose of work is to produce socially valuable things that the workers themselves directly benefit from. The wealth is not hoarded by the state, but it's rather reinvested in socially useful ways such as building infrastructure, providing healthcare, education, and so on.