Naming it after Lenin who was corrupted by his power and eventually became fascist.

Citation needed. Also did you notice Lenin on the sidebar?

that the only way to implement a communist state is to have no intermediate state of dictatorship

There has never been a successful anarcho-communist revolution. The only successful revolutions have been explicitly anti-imperialist, or ML / communist. From Parenti’s Left Anti-communism, the unkindest cut:

For a people’s revolution to survive, it must seize state power and use it to (a) break the stranglehold exercised by the owning class over the society’s institutions and resources, and (b) withstand the reactionary counterattack that is sure to come. The internal and external dangers a revolution faces necessitate a centralized state power that is not particularly to anyone’s liking, not in Soviet Russia in 1917, nor in Sandinista Nicaragua in 1980.

Engels offers an apposite account of an uprising in Spain in 1872-73 in which anarchists seized power in municipalities across the country. At first, the situation looked promising. The king had abdicated and the bourgeois government could muster but a few thousand ill-trained troops. Yet this ragtag force prevailed because it faced a thoroughly parochialized rebellion. “Each town proclaimed itself as a sovereign canton and set up a revolutionary committee (junta),” Engels writes. “[E]ach town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not cooperation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack [against bourgeois forces].” It was “the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other.”

Decentralized parochial autonomy is the graveyard of insurgency–which may be one reason why there has never been a successful anarcho-syndicalist revolution. Ideally, it would be a fine thing to have only local, self-directed, worker participation, with minimal bureaucracy, police, and military. This probably would be the development of socialism, were socialism ever allowed to develop unhindered by counterrevolutionary subversion and attack. One might recall how, in 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations, including the United States, invaded Soviet Russia in a bloody but unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the revolutionary Bolshevik government. The years of foreign invasion and civil war did much to intensify the Bolsheviks’ siege psychology with its commitment to lockstep party unity and a repressive security apparatus. Thus, in May 1921, the same Lenin who had encouraged the practice of internal party democracy and struggled against Trotsky in order to give the trade unions a greater measure of autonomy, now called for an end to the Workers’ Opposition and other factional groups within the party. “The time has come,” he told an enthusiastically concurring Tenth Party Congress, “to put an end to opposition, to put a lid on it: we have had enough opposition.” Open disputes and conflicting tendencies within and without the party, the communists concluded, created an appearance of division and weakness that invited attack by formidable foes.

Only a month earlier, in April 1921, Lenin had called for more worker representation on the party’s Central Committee. In short, he had become not anti-worker but anti-opposition. Here was a social revolution–like every other–that was not allowed to develop its political and material life in an unhindered way.

doomed to fail as power corrupts

This is a standard liberal talking point, that power corrupts, IE all people are selfish individual units, and no one in a position of power can act for the collective good, and use that power to benefit others. What matters, in class society, is in whose class interests leaders work towards. Otherwise you end up with nonsense like equating richard nixon to fidel castro.

I decided to remove your comment for breaking the first rule of the Communist Lemmy instance:

1. No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.

And also the first rule of the /c/communism community:

1. No non-marxists

Your analysis of the period is not just plain wrong, but it’s highly infected by idealism. Lenin was not a monolith, he was elected democratically by the peasants and workers, and the policies enacted during his era was the conscious and collective decision of the whole of the CPSU. Anyways, @muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml already described your mistakes.

We have a safe space for communists to advance our science through collective and international engagement. In this place, we don’t have to respond to common CIA propaganda talking points, something that surely slow us down. If you have any questions about communism and past or actually existing socialist experiences, please, feel free to ask the community at /c/communism101. Until then, please, study further, you’re just embarassing yourself.

P.S.: Also, refrain from using dummy accounts to make your upvote count higher and downvoting others. This is infantile.