conflation between communism and USSR
dictatorship.
If you want to be more precise in your terminology, I suggest the following distinctions:
Marxism is a theory. Typically 3 things are theorised. (1) How capitalism (re)produced inequality. (2) A theory of revolution as intrinsic part of the transition from contemporary society to communism via socialism. (3) A theory of post-revolutionary society.
Socialism. This describes post-revolutionary, but pre-communist societies, in particular USSR and its satellites.
Communism. The ideal society, post-revolution, where the "contradictions of capitalism" have disappeared.
IMO, it's not very fruitful to study the ideas of Marx/Engels together with the soviet union. Soviet union was a military dictatorship that used the communist story as the replacement theology for their domain.
Sure, there were the true believers who ate up the dogma but I'm pretty sure most of the soviet leadership were pragmatic revolutionaries who just wanted power. They needed to replace "the story of the czar as a loving father" with the story of the communist agenda in peoples minds.
That startup failed almost immediately and pivoted as a dictatorship. Calling the USSR communist is like calling Nintendo a playing card company.
Communism seems to work better for ants, bees, and termites. It also might, sort of, work for small groups of humans (extended families)
I think that explains why all communist 'startups' with over, say, 1000 people fail very soon.
Socialism has the same problem to a lesser extent. "Everybody has the right to get something" scales to larger populations than "everybody should get the same". Very few people would knowingly let their neighbors die of hunger, for example, but extending that to "come and have what we eat" is a step too far.
I'm not sure that's true. Granted, it was ostensibly, outwardly created for that purpose. But I'm not sure that was the actual intent of those who lead that charge.
My History is quite dusty, so I wonder what exactly brought about the dictatorships you mentioned. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a revolution lead to (near) absolutism. The French revolution for instance lead to Napoleon. Given this, I wonder how representative governments were able to emerge at all. It doesn't make me very optimistic about the possibility for democracy either. (Yeah, for various reasons, representative governments are hardly democratic: elected leaders are very poor proxies for the will of the people.)
the actual intent
wouldn't be the first time
The latter often gives a pretty good insight about the former. The fact that USSR became a dictatorship so quickly makes the leaders of the movement look pretty bad.
There is no escaping ideology: we humans have values that go beyond our own self anyway. Good luck finding the "right" (whatever that means) ideology, though.
I sense a conflation between communism and USSR dictatorship. I'm not sure this is warranted. (Then again, China is supposedly lead by a "communist party".) More generally, are you suggesting that collectivist ideologies necessarily leads to totalitarianism?
> which enable the individual to exist without any dependencies except a job.
That last exception will need to be remedied some day. Some more automation and substantially more redistribution should do it. Which is why I'm so disturbed by your juxtaposition of communism and national socialism: many people equate redistribution with communism with dictatorship, preventing us to solve the problem of ever growing structural inequality. We're going to get over this trauma if we're to avoid the coming horrors of corporate capitalism (or the horrors of its unplanned demise).