Yeah I post "memes"

Lmao. I like your analogy, and unlike communism WuTang is forever. That said- There really hasn’t been a “pure” communism or a “pure” capitalism for that matter- and they are philosophies which can be mixed with systems of government in such ways that things like “communist dictatorships” aren’t mutually exclusive. Communism specifies primarily a dissolution of private ownership for communal ownership, and a system where resources are allocated by merit and need. But if the people control the means of production, there is nothing inherent to communism which says no one has control of the people. The principals of communism imply freedom of choice but don’t actually require it. Even a monarchy could be communist. For example, wealth and ownership are classic sources of power, but people can be very powerful or famous and have neither or little of either- power doesn’t have to come from ownership of material assets.

We could argue that things like monarchy define a class based system, but communism isn’t inherently classless, Marxist communism and certain other theories expose classless society, but class is s construct we assign through perception. As an example- the president of the United States makes low to mid 6 figures a year- less than many entry level technical workers or corporate management. Yet the President certainly has both power and status much higher than that of “Rick from IT.” Conversely, sanitation workers like garbage collectors can make close to or more than 6 figures plus all sorts of job perks, but they and the job tend to be looked down on by society.

That said overall I agree and most people who talk about “socialism” and “communism” and such need to learn what those words mean.