Well, in the USSR it was Ukrainians. Every authoritarian system find its outgroups.

The largest demographic group receiving SNAP benefits is white people, at 37%, so (tries to do math like a racist) 63% assorted brown people!

But what really sells it to the 37% of white people in mostly red states with poor public education are things like this article about some super genius trolling where the first 3 groups alone add up to like 124%. I expect that the 17% of people who do not report ethnic demographics are largely white in the first place, and have been gaslit for so long that they won't report out of fear of being some sort of "race traitor" or some other stupid racist BS thing that idiots do.

The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist

Hard disagree. Universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, lowest wealth and income inequality in the history of the region, guaranteed housing and abolition of homelessness and unemployment, life expectancy skyrocketing from a meager 28 years to 70 in the span of 40 years, abolition of private business, redistribution of land to peasants, and saving Europe from Fascism really seem like communist traits to me. There were defects and policy failures during some of the hardest times in history, don't get me wrong, but simply by achieving all of those wonderful goals without ever having colonies or engaging in imperialism, that's very communist to me.

What you are experiencing in the US is totalitarianism and while it hasn't gotten to USSR levels, it is going on that direction

The US has had, for decades, the highest prison population in the world, both in absolute and relative terms. In absolute terms, the US has nearly as many prisoners as the USSR did during WW2, the historic highest for obvious reasons (25 million Soviet citizens were killed by Nazism). You have literal fascist police disappearing people based on the colour of the skin, and the US has literally bombed black people for their ideology in US soil.

You're damn high in American exceptionalism and anticommunist propaganda.

True communism is very democratic

Literately Marx himself called for a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Which would then somehow magically give way to a true democratic government, as if any dictator on earth had ever just resigned out of their own accord.

True communism is very democratic.

At some point, you have to get passed "true whatever" and accept certain institutions already exist.

Also helps to recognize that communism as a movement has been anti-colonialist first and democratic only as it serves the former cause. Communists aren't receptive to a liberal democracy that allows half the people to sell out the other half.

Folks love to get lost in the sauce talking about what Marxism really truly means, as an ideology, without asking why people adopt it or how they apply it in practice.

The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.

Yes. But what does that mean? If I have a recipe for potion of immortality, but anyone that drinks the resulting potion dies instead, it's a bad recipe. It doesn't matter its promise of immortality sounds good.

Communism makes good promises. However, every time you have a communist revolution, it ends up being authoritarian instead. What does that say about the communist political system?

You don’t see any state run bread lines do you?

I remember getting extremely screamed at on Reddit when I posted "Bread Lines" and the picture of a line around the block at a grocery store on the eve of a hurricane.

Apparently, that's not a "real" bread line because idfk free markets or some shit.

Imagine a society in which every person has exactly the same sociopolitical power as every other person; representatives and officials do not have additional power; that's a property of a truly communist society.

Aren't you sort of describing democracy, and not socialism? I'm a Communist myself and I've never heard anyone claim that every person will have the exact same sociopolitical power, reading Marx or Lenin I've never encountered anything as such. Obviously people more engaged with politics should have more political power, in the sense that contributing to politics is both a privilege and a responsibility. Organizers of a local worker council will obviously have more political power than people who choose not to participate on that.

Imagine a society in which everyone's needs are met for an extreme body of needs (say as defined by the UN Universal Declaration of Human RIghts). The only transients that exist either are in a short line to be issued a dwelling, or don't want one. Everyone is fed. Everyone has their own stuff. This isn't impossible, but is difficult as heck to reach.

It's not impossible, or even difficult to reach. 1970s USSR literally had all of this. Access to a job, to housing, to universal healthcare, to free education to the highest level, to quality urban planning and public transit, to affordable basic foodstuffs and clothes, and very cheap energy, were all available. Again, I'm talking about 1970s technology and progress in a self-sufficient country isolated from world markets, without engaging in colonialism and extraction of resources from the global south, in a country that 40 years prior had been a feudal backwater in which 80% of the population were peasants, most of them not owning any land and being essentially serfs to landlords. Cuba, today, manages to get most of this, despite being in the most comprehensive economic embargo in history. It's not remotely hard to achieve this, the main obstacle to this is western imperialism doing everything in its hand to destroy any attempt, from regime destabilization, to outright threat of nuclear war, including bombing of your country to the ground (Vietnam, Korea) or support of fascists (Chile).

As for people having their own stuff:

I wonder if there's anything in common in those countries...