There's also just a fundamental problem with planned economies from a purely economic standpoint: they are much less efficient at actually providing the minimum set of goods and services required by a population, and they're worse at achieving growth. See the most recent Nobel Prize in economics for a citation. Funnily enough, the same paper's arguments apply equally to oligarchic economies and crony capitalist economies, which are semi-planned economies by a small group of the ultra wealthy.

More specifically to the OP, communist countries have planned economies, which by nature requires a strong authority to tightly control production. Hence why communist states always have very consolidated political power structures. And once the power is consolidated, all it takes is one bad actor to get that power and ruin everything.

but you have many capitalists competing, so the power is kinda distributed inside the capitalist class.

This isn't always true, and is arguably not the natural state of capitalism. Capitalism, without state intervention, will tend towards monopoly as economies of scale and market power push out any competition.

Iirc this is what Trade Syndicalism was meant to solve. After all the talk about the people's rebellion it gets into balancing power by keeping it distributed among unions. So your political career would be to get elected in your union and then serve on the councils at different levels.

So we need to destroy the means of production, got it. Down with anything built after 1825, we living like its 1799!