M: The only way to argue that Donald demanding shares of various industries isn't communism, is to say that it can't be communism because he's the only one getting rich off of it, not the government.
G: [Non-text content: reasoning_recap; content_type=reasoning_recap]
G: That's a provocative way to frame it, but I'd separate a few concepts.
Communism, in the classic sense, is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned (typically by the state in practice, or theoretically by the workers) and private ownership is abolished or heavily restricted. The goal, at least in theory, is collective rather than personal enrichment.
If a leader pressures companies to give him personally, or businesses controlled by him or his family, an ownership stake in exchange for favorable treatment, that's generally not what political scientists would call communism. It fits more closely with concepts like:
On the other hand, if the government itself demanded equity stakes in private companies as a matter of policy, that would be a form of increased state ownership. Whether someone labeled that "socialist," "state capitalist," or something else would depend on the scope and purpose. Even then, it still wouldn't automatically be communism.
So I think the strongest version of your point isn't that "it's communism except only one person gets rich." It's that:
If the state is used to coerce transfers of private wealth or ownership to benefit a single ruler or his associates, the defining feature is personal enrichment through political power, not collective ownership. That is much closer to kleptocracy than to communism.
That distinction matters because otherwise the word "communism" loses its descriptive value. A dictatorship can be corrupt whether it claims to be communist, capitalist, nationalist, or something else. The underlying mechanism is the use of state power for private benefit.