I read most of it and I think I get the gist. The article is right about the absence of anarcho-communism, or "true communism", as I imagine you would call it. However, the communist party, was by all means, communist. They assumed that communism would not come to exist if the population wasn't given a little bit of "encouragement". They achieved communism by using the state as a medium between the people and their so-called "shared property". The article most definitely has a point, however I would not agree with the fact that the government intended to "own" everything for themselves, but rather that they intended to own things on behalf of the people. Upon the arrival of Stalin, the USSR became less of a state with a "leader", and more of a state with a "dictator". It is important to understand how this ties in with the struggling economic situation that the country was in. Stalin did not want the world to think that communism was failing in Russia, so he committed the Holodomor in order to export more wheat, and to show how much the country was overproducing, when they were in fact underproducing. Communism did exist in Russia, but it was steered away from the interests of the people, in favor of the interests of the reputation of Communism.

I feel as though this article attempts to blame the fails of communism on capitalism, which was not present what-so-ever in Russia (hence the collapse of the country).