This is just another in your long line of straw men used to excuse your bona fide ignorance on Marxist ideology and on economic organization in general. It's not remarkably offensive, because it's the standard position of US citizens, i.e. embracing wholly Cold War propaganda
"Communism" as an historical artifact that basically equates to (revolution) + (bureaucratic dictatorship) + (expropriation of land and industrial means) + (modest public-institutional safety net) + (illiberal economic decisionmaking) has been tried, and it ends in rigid, and often brutal, state capitalism.
Following that same course, it has also been moderately successful (Cuba) and utterly horrifying (Cambodia).
But that course is neither (a) definitionally "socialism" in the slightest, nor (b) consistent with Marxist ideology on building of the communist consensus.
The closest thing to proper "communism" as defined by Marx would be the Yugoslavian model, which, if you poll former-Yugoslavs today, is overwhelmingly missed (with nearly 70% saying they were better under the system before ethnic tensions and reactionary nationalism tore it apart). The closest thing to "socialism," which is a much broader term that precedes and eclipses Marx, is the social democratic Nordic Model of Denmark/Sweden/Norway, i.e. the three happiest countries in the world.
Anyways, I've posted this here before, but I'll do it again just because Chomsky is such a natural teacher, in that he breaks things down to the point of being very easy to understand. I urge you to watch it if you have any interest in being informed on these terms and, thus, less aggravated by their usage.
