Communism focused on poverty. Isn't that success?

"A hundred years ago, a group of Communist revolutionaries stormed the Winter Palace in St Petersburg to overthrow the first democratic government in Russian history," wrote an editorial in the Mint. "The new dawn they promised eventually became a nightmare for the millions of people who lived under Communist regimes. A group of European historians, in a book titled 'The Black Book of Communism' estimated that 94 million people have been killed by Communist regimes around the world over the years." The democratic government, which the Bolsheviks overthrew, was led by Alexander Kerensky and lasted just 8 months. Communism was an idealistic movement in which private property was abolished, a socialist state controlled all business, and accumulation of wealth in private hands was made impossible by the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". The feudal system had become oppressive. The Magna Carta was a rebellion against the king, led by barons. The French revolution was also against a monarch, but resulted in the rise of Nepoleon, and more wars. Today the October Revolution is not mentioned in Russia and statues of Vladimir Lenin are dumped anywhere. Communism failed. Why? Capitalist nations became softer, offering social security to the poor, services became more important than manufacturing, communist states became brutal dictatorships, and innovation disappeared in communist countries without reward. India practices a mixture of socialism, in which the government controls banks, railways and Air India, capitalism, in which 1% of Indians possess 58.4% of the entire wealth of the nation, and communism, in which the government hands out cash under a plethora of government schemes. Despite such a caring state around 12,000 farmers commit suicide every year, most because of inability to repay loans to local moneylenders. India has the highest number of malnourished and stunted children. Recently, a paper by Piketty and Chancel created an uproar by suggesting that inequality in India has increased to levels not seen since 1924. India has gone from "British Raj to Billionaire Raj". T Kundu disputed assumptions in the paper but acknowledged that the paper raised some important points. So, what should we do? Gokarn and Sandhu suggest that direct cash transfer is the "Stairway to prosperity", although the nations they have mentioned as examples are not rich. No such hesitation for UD Choubey. He suggests complete control of all capital by the state. "In India, the left has become a spent force," said the editorial, but we celebrated 50 years of Naxalbari revolt this year. Communism failed. But it has made us conscious of inequality. Perhaps, that is it's success.