Dictatorships use suppression. Communism is a style of collective government. The USSR was never communist, the government merely used the lexicon of communism to suit its needs.
Communism is defined by a desire of common ownership of the means of production, absence of social classes, money, and the state. So it's kinda hard to conceive of this end goal through dictatorship, but you're welcome to try.
The USSR was a dictatorship. Whenever that became impossible to deny, leaders characterized themselves as caretakers. Now Russia pretends to be democratic. But it's still a dictatorship.
Pretty common though: North Korea is a democratic state (according to its name), but not real democracy. National Socialism wasn't really socialist. The UK isn't a real monarchy.
It's a language game compelled by the guilt-by-association level of political sophistication of our culture. When the debate is rarely more sophisticated than 'that's socialist, like Hitler!!!!1!', it's no wonder that the response has to be 'that wasn't true socialism'.
The National Socialists were socialists in that they wished to control the means of production. State takeover was not part of that (as in the Soviets case) but new state-run industries (e.g. Volkswagen) were very much a part of that. The National Socialists controlled the economy through price setting and out put setting. Ostensibly the businesses were still privately owned - but if you can't control your prices, your output, or enter a new market, how much ownership do you really have? The same went for Labour unions - independent Labour unions were undermined to promote nationalised Labour unions, for the same purposes. The purpose is to centralise control of the entire nation for the purposes of planning the economic direction and output.
The big difference between National Socialists and International Socialists was that the former wished to strengthen their economy/people through careful curation of the economy and nation, whereas international socialists wished to replace private ownership everywhere (communism), and most promoted revolution as a means to that end.
I agree with you entirely that most people fall back on the 'no true scotsman' fallacy to disassociate their ideology with Hitler and the Nazis. What has always been curious to me is that people still identify with USSR socialism despite Stalin and the Soviets being equally as abhorrent as Hitler and the Nazis.
Every political ideology claims to make things better (if only for some folks). The practical question is - which one is likely to devolve into a pathological state, given a historical and cultural milieu where it is implemented, plus the natural limitations on information transfer between humans and entropy that pushes against our organizational efforts?
The UK is no longer an absolute monarchy, and has not been for many centuries, but the UK is a real constitutional monarchy. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are real constitutional monarchies too, in personal union with the UK.
The monarch has real genuine powers, and real discretion in how to exercise them, in the case of a constitutional crisis. Constitutional crises are rare, but they do happen. Consider a case from Australia - the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr. That is an example of a Vice Regal official exercising real, discretionary power. If the same situation had happened in the UK instead of Australia, the discretion would have resided with the Queen personally, as opposed to with her (largely indepedently acting) representative. Even in Australia, it is plausible the Queen could become involved in a 1975-style situation. If Whitlam had suspected Kerr was going to sack him, he could have tried to sack Kerr first. If there was a race to sack each other between the PM and the Governor-General, the Queen would have to personally decide how to react. e.g. if the PM advises the Queen to sack the GG, and immediately after that advice but before the Queen acts on it, the GG sacks the PM, should the Queen act on the request of the just sacked PM to sack the GG, or refuse? What if the GG advises the Queen to not sack him/her after all, or immediately appoints a new PM who conveys the same advice? Ultimately, whatever she did in such a scenario would be her personal decision, and it is unlikely that any court (whether in Australia or the UK) would entertain overturning it.
The term Communist Dictatorship is an oxymoron. Even though it's true that Lenin envisioned a dictatorship based on Marx's theories, this is not really anything like communism in the sense that Marx envisioned. The Jewish Kibbutz is a communist organization and notice how democratic it is.
The phrase communist country is a contradiction, communism means there are no countries.
The people drawing cave paintings in Chauvet 30,000 years ago were living in a communist society. 10,000 years ago the entire world was communist. Then slave societies arose in the Middle East and elsewhere.
