I disagree. Marx and Engels' Communist ideal was a utopian society where everyone was so equal they had no need for social class, money, or even government. That has not happened since humans learned to farm and settled down. One of many problems with Communism is that it requires a dictator to force the change, and dictators as a group are not known for sharing their power once they've seized it.
You could make a case for socialism, as in its simplest form it can be described as "pooling your resources," but not Communism.
I disagree.
First of all, communism goes back millions of years and was not started by Marx or Engels, and Marx and Engels never really completed any sort of vision of their interpretation.
In the early 1800s it was obvious there was a problem, because new steam powered looms were putting millions of cottage industry homes out of business.
So Marx and Engels were just theorizing about a solution.
But it all became moot because unions, anti trust laws, child labor regulations, etc., fixed most things.
It is not clear if or what communism could be on a large scale like a whole country, but it most definitely can not require a dictator.
A dictator automatically is not and can not be communism.
What I think the problem is that you think communism means no private property, and that is a mistake.
No one ever suggested that.
But when Marx and Engels talk about ending private property, they are only referring to the means of production.
Meaning factories, farms, etc.
They never means homes, properties, furniture, vehicles, fishing boats, etc.
You have a point in that Tsarist Russia likely was incompatible with communism.
No one really understood communism and very few bought into it, but the main failure that caused Russia to become a totalitarian dictatorship is that Lenin was a paid German agent, sent to destroy Russia and get it out of the war.
So while Lenin and Stalin were dictators, and Russia almost required dictator for the massive changes, it was not communism in any way.