Communism under a dictatorship is a paradox. The people own and control nothing. The leader and their chosen circle own and control everything. That is neither communism nor socialism and it is not possible for either to exist in any authoritarian context.

Yep.

Communism and socialism in itself isn't that problematic an economic system. Unless of course you belong to the few select brands of freeloaders who've successfully managed to sell to the general population that without you, everything would collapse (looking at you, landlords and billionaires and stock market speculators).

The problem is that the economic part can't work without an evenly matched societal system - and for people to bypass their immediate greed reaction of the usual "why should the result of my work go to others who didn't do that work" BS, as seeing far ahead to realise that pooling resources in such manner will benefit everyone, and when the community thrives, so does the individual. For that, one needs proper education, which is usually the antithesis of a capitalist system (a capitalist system will inherently only allow one to learn a limited set of facts, and will systematically ridicule those who dare step outside those limits).

And herein lies the second problem. Socialism and communism could be great for the average people, but the average people have been misled and lied to and been brainwashed for so long, they need to be forcibly broken out of that bubble. And the only way to force that is through a revolution, and authoritarian enforcement of the socioeconomic system.

Now the problem with that is... it's incredibly easy for a malicious actor to then infiltrate the authoritarian system, and push its leaders to do counterproductive things. Add on top of that the constant CIA meddling, and you get your run of the mill authoritarian "communist" (in name only) paranoid leader who rules with an iron fist. The intention might've been good, but the execution was starkly against the very people the revolution was supposed to help. Repeat it a few times and now the whole world is afraid of the economic system, not authoritarianism.

Then continue by throwing in some brainwashed tankies who literally suck up to the authoritarian regimes, spreading BS about how those are "true communism", just so average people don't even consider learning about it because the term becomes synonymous with authoritarians and their bootlickers.

Communism is very much a social system. Implying economics don't have a huge impact on society would be the opposite of Marxism.

But he wasn't criticizing communism, or advocating for capitalism. He was criticizing a dictator and saying he prefers democracy.

Unless you think communism can't exist outside of a brutal dictatorship.

communism is an economic system whereas democracy is a social one

Communism is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, the pseudoscientifically postulated utopia of a stateless, classless, moneyless, post-scarcity society. Communist ideology is like the Christianity of politics & economics that keeps promising the 2nd coming of Christ: they insist it'll happen someday inevitably. No possible way Marx was wrong.

Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state): a political system/government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society.

Democracy is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state. Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.

So, colloquially, communism refers to a political & economic system whereas democracy refers to a political system.

As a political system, the communist state is totalitarian, the most extreme authoritarianism:

Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.

Whereas an authoritarian regime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature (they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested), totalitarianism aims for more. A totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as

• Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren't inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights. Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed. Dissent is punished. Unauthorized political activities aren't tolerated.
• State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
• Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
• Economic control.

All of this is entirely compatible with Marxism-Leninism.

Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism. It holds that governments exist for the people & authority is legitimate only when it protects inalienable/fundamental/inherent rights & liberties of individuals. The people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority, and when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy.

I would personally prefer a Mutualist system.

I wonder why the .ml stans seem so interested in defending current Russian interests, it's very perplexing, it's like they're watching Russian media or something