Clearly there's no way for me to penetrate your preconceived notions. I don't have the skill or the energy to get through your defenses.

not sure why you think olgiarchy is anything more than rule by minority

Your definition of minority is nonsensical and tautological. All organizations ever in the history of the world except the smallest co-operatives are oligarchies by this definition. Hell, in a patriarchal society, every single family is an oligarchy. It's a useless term the way you're using it. You've taken a word, adopted the standard moral connotation, and then expanded the definition to include absolutely everything so that now you can argue that communism specifically falls to this moral judgement. That's a classic move in debate, but it's a useless technique for understanding anything.

Supplying African nations weapons

You think this is a part of fascism? How else do you think resisting mass murdering genocidal imperialism is going work? By praying for it? You're fully able to accept that the US is a psychotic fascist state wreaking havoc all over the globe but anyone who sells arms into a contested theater is now fascist? And you accuse me of idealism? Perhaps you don't know what that word means either.

transgenders are supported by western communists but it is a mixed bag with non-western

Development of consciousness is uneven, always has been and always will be. Iran represses homosexuality but supportive of transgenderism. I am not blinded to the harsh sentences for non-conforming communities. I also don't think policies towards non-conformist are relevant to any specific communist movement. You are the one who is doing the "no true communism" fallacy by saying that any society that represses non-conformism is not truly following the doctrine of the liberation of the working classes.

I know you won't concede that, but that's why I don't think I can break through your defensive wall. You've convinced yourself that everyone else is committing the fallacies you are committing, you have modified definitions or even inverted some, like idealism, and you've locked it all down with a moralism that ensures you'll never even acknowledge your errors because if you acknowledge your errors than you have morally failed.

The Soviet state used centralized economic and political control to grant material privileges and high living standards to party elites.

Clearly you've never read anything other than anarchist and liberal writings about the USSR. From 1917 to 1949, the USSR used central planning to permanentnlly end the cycle of famines that plagued the region for over a century, mechanized farming, and build a war machine capable of defending itself against Western Europe and the USA, and then built it even further so that it could defend all of Europe from the Nazis and then defeated the Nazis.

After that, they used central planning to greatly improve the quality of life of the masses, become the second best fed population in the world, make major breakthroughs in medicine and science and then. But they ALSO used it to create a political class above the law and enrich themselves personally. We all know this, but you don't seem to understand it. You think the enrichment of a political class was an "always" thing instead of distinct historical process that emerged from a different formation. And it seems like the reason you can't understand this is because you think a representative system of government will always be an oligarchy no matter what, because for whatever reason you have anchored on the mathematical aspect of minority rule and you will only ever accept a government is not an oligarchy if 51% of the population is in positions of decision making power, and since oligarchies are evil and they engage in self-enrichment and are above the law, then therefore the USSR from 1917 to 1949 must have been enriching their political elite.

You're not dealing with reality. You're cherry picking some facts and then smearing them across history and calling it analysis.

unless that 6 day a week 12 hour a day work week is what you are talking about

We can get in to the labor problems in China specifically, but I suspect you're better off actually studying it then dealing with your moral framework in a discussion. Suffice to say that prior to industrialization, Chinese peasants were rice farmers and working far harder because they had to in order to survive. Subsistence farming is a hard life. Building a nation is hard work and a liberated working class will find itself working hard during difficult times and working less during less difficult times. Considering that the US is constantly threatening China with military encirclement, total isolation, and literal terrorism, I think that it's appropriate to say China is in difficult times.

And as for that oligarchy, Chinese politicians are well known to work long hours daily and without days off, with a legal cap of 15 days of vacation maximum earned after 20 years of service (only 5 days off for less than 11 years of service).

Your understanding of liberation is at odds with the understanding of liberation that communist analysis has arrived at. Liberation of the working classes is a universalizing project. No one is free until everyone is free. As the USSR showed, national defense against the West requires grueling labor. The idea that China is not socialist, led by a communist party focused on the liberation of the working classes because many people work long hours is nonsensical. Talk about idealism!

Communist regimes use coercion, military force, and political pressure to expand and maintain communist systems.

You're so silly. You said that "maybe you're waiting for the right implementation" and I said communists explicitly reject that concept. Your defense is that communist movements are political and have a military? Are you sure you know what a modern state is? Are you sure you're not thinking of a community garden? Oh, wait, community gardens do use political pressure, so that's not it. Maybe you're thinking of a forest, or a lake, or maybe a mountain.

I'm serious though. Your position amounts to "liberation is only possible when you don't fight back, don't wield power, and don't exist". It's peak idealism.

That's got to be one of the worst description of a socialist state I have ever seen. I thought you were an idealist.

You really need to read more and study these topics before you speak on them. Reading your writing is like looking into a house full of fun house mirrors. You are so truly disconnected from reality and history. It's almost like you've read some anarchism and then mostly wikipedia.

You don't have to convince me that they did better things than the US

I wasn't. I was explaining that they did better than literally every other liberal revolution. Liberal revolutions all over the world precipitated a century a more of mass poverty, war, and violent repression of labor. A century is a long time. Communism never took more than 30 years to lift up the masses. That's a real historical material difference that puts the movement for communism in a fundamentally different category that other political movements.

But again, I can't convince you. Convincing you of any point would be a moral failing on your point. You even think you've deprogrammed yourself so if I convince you of anything you will have failed that too.

I can encourage you to read more things you disagree with, from people you disagree with (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc) and understand what was really written instead of reading secondary sources that twist and pervert understanding. Or you could read some secondary sources that disagree with you (Parenti, Losurdo, Boer).

But other than that, I dunno. I don't think we have any way to communicate with each other