Sure you can ignore the context entirely and focus only on the derivation of the name to sum up an entire economic model with extensive literature about it.
I mean Communism has plenty in common with Capitalism too, so should we just say that they’re the same thing too?
This way you can reduce all Communists to desiring a single small subsistence commune and suggest they go join a small-holding and leave everyone else to it - like so many people do.
Capitalism works best post-Feudalism, and is great for getting the poor out of poverty and kick-starting a technological age, but it becomes toxic after this is achieved - the aim isn’t then to regress all the way back to the start, it’s to devolve power yet one more step: having been passed all the way down from the autocracy of tribalism, through feudal lords, through capitalists, to the working class so everyone can actually enjoy the fruits of previous steps in the Historical Materialism chain.
Direct Democracy finally becomes possible… but u wouldn’t call urself a communist even though that’s what you’re after, yes? The same as countless others who simply don’t know…
Every thread on this subject is the same, nobody’s read up on the subject, but they’re all so eager to tie in Communism either with its opposite: State Totalitarianism, Social Democracy (which is what we already have), Progressivism (individual communes could stoop to that if they wanted, but couldn’t force it on others because there’s no centralised power, or prevent anyone from moving to another commune if they didn’t like it), or Socialism (which is simply a transition from Capitalism to Communism according to Lenin).
The insistence to misunderstand and spread misunderstanding of the solution, which pretty much everyone is after anyway, is the definition of stupidity.