False. To know so much about communist theory you don't understand the basics, what you don't have in communist societies is ownership of the means of production, but people had private possessions like cars, clothes and houses.
LOL... houses?
Typical soviet family had to wait years to be able get an allocation to "buy" a car. Even worse with apartments (forget houses; even in rural areas people tended to be forced into multi-tenant buildings), which unless you were high up in the communist party hierarchy you'd be waiting for decades. None of that was a real purchase of course, because the money did not have the value that the government said it would have, and the missing part of that value (the decades-long lines) had to be "earned" with underpaid labor or acquired via bribes/black market/etc.
Even getting basic stuff like socks or sugar often wasn't as simple as going to the store and buying it. There were allocations, limits, queues, party bosses with dibs, etc.
And that wasn't even communism, that was just what they called socialism in progress of building communism. They were partially successful in (almost) getting rid of money, that was quite a feat.
Not sure how you could read the article you linked to and think "yeah that proves soviets had private property" even though it's a lengthy description how far from actual ownership and free market the whole thing was... and then also think that the US is anywhere near that.
Then there are societies such as North Korea that restrict property more, and others that restrict it less, but in all of them there is private property, otherwise it would not make sense to have a currency circulating to buy goods and services.
The "native" currency was worthless, that's the whole point. USD was the real currency in USSR but very few had access to it until late 1980s when the shit really hit the fan. Some goods and services could be used as currency (BADecker would have loved this).
Throwing "communism" around like this defeats whatever point you might be trying to make. Any sane person looks at this and looks at North Korea and knows this is a bullshit argument.
Any sane person who looks not only at North Korea but also at what happened in Venezuela, for example, realizes that the only way to implement communism is not overnight. It can also be implemented little by little, step by step, saying that you are not a communist but that it is unfair that the rich earn so much and that the best thing is for the state to take away what they earn so that we are all equal, and the story ends with everyone being equally poor, those who survive.
Kamala is not going to implement a communism overnight, she is going to go little by little. What's more, the latest from the Democratic party is wanting to abolish the first amendment. Have you heard Kerry and Walz talk about it? A project that seems to have been dreamed up by a high ranking Stalinist. Ban what can't be said from a state body, controlled by the Democrats, of course.
I'm sorry, that's just nonsense. You can take some of Trump's promises and say this leads to communism just as easily. There are some bullshit policies on Kamala's side too, it's fair to ridicule them but again, saying that those things somehow relate to communism is absurd and makes no sense outside of the whatever infobubble you pulled that from.
By the way, soviet regime was (and Russian regime still mostly is) extremely homophobic, xenophobic, tough on whatever it deemed a crime, and peddling massive amounts of fearmongering to keep the population scared and subservient. I wouldn't be surprised if Newt Gingrich and other "architects" of modern GOP learned from that.