Soviet Union (Marxism-Leninism) created a lot of wealth. I don't think it's a good implementation of socialism but your claim that "communism destroys wealth (and lives) rather than create" is just plain false.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45311779

Most descriptions of the evils of communism usually describe Fascism. As we all know, fascism destroys wealth and lives, except for the oligarchs that manage to float to the top.

Fascism is quite a vague concept (as is communism), but I think you're right that the "exclusive collectionism" (exclusive to e.g. nationality or ethnicity) and extreme hierarchies (e.g. the fuhrer-principle) are close to what the Cold War propaganda attributes to socialism.

And as we know, fascism is capitalism in decay.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170131155837/http://www.nybook... Umberto Eco wrote my goto definition of fascism. hope you find it interesting.

Socialism is one of those heavily mis-defined/used words. I tend to stick to the economic definition. As in "A socialist economic system is characterized by social ownership and operation of the means of production that may take the form of autonomous cooperatives or direct public ownership wherein production is carried out directly for use rather than for profit." (quote from Wikipedia socialist economics). one of the downsides of discussions about socialism is inevitably someone starts using long convoluted sentences like the above.

Socialism as political definitions have been merged and smashed together with communism and fascism in Nazism and conservatism etc. etc.

Yet they seem to be doing fine?