Did you notice how communism was always about central control with only superficial or absolutely no elections?

Did you notice I specifically said decisions should be made democratically?

Are those two not in direct conflict?

Please, stop pattern matching, and actually consider what I wrote.

The name you are looking for is communalism, not communism.

You can tell we're not talking about communism because the previous commenter said "economic system", whereas the whole concept of an economic system vanishes with communism. It does not imagine an economic system would serve a purpose when scarcity is no longer a constraint. Hence the whole no state, money, or class thing.

You, yourself, literally wrote the original description of what we are talking about. How did you manage to end up so confused?

> Did you notice how communism was always about central control with only superficial or absolutely no elections?

And no. That sounds like you are thinking of a dictatorship. Probably a dictatorship at the hands of a political party that includes "Communist" in the name, granted, but thinking of that as communism is like thinking the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.

Communism is science fiction that is imagined on the same basic premise as Star Trek. It is not about central control. As before, it rejects the idea that a central control (the state) would even remain. Marx and Engels hypothesized that the proletariat would have to temporarily seize control from the capitalist elite in order to usher in communism, but even if you somehow managed to confuse communism with their work, that isn't really central control either. What they pictured is still closer to being a democracy, except one that that excludes the bourgeoisie, similar to how women were historically excluded from democracy.