I agree with many of the points, however:

> In every attempt at implementing Communism so far, the oppressed, when given power, immediately become the corrupt and oppressive over-class.

I think this is not accurate. Those among the oppressed who get power are not fair representatives of the oppressed; they are power-hungry. Those who are not power-hungry almost never get any power. The power-hungry oppressed have much more in common with the power-hungry elite than the average oppressed person.

The tragedy here is that revolutions are often corrupted from the beginning because those people who claim to be fighting for a just cause are in fact only fighting for themselves and using the just cause as a pretext to drum up support for their power grabbing scheme.

When the elites want to maintain power by all means, they often do it by corrupting the groups which pose a threat to them; they try to buy the loyalty of opposing group leaders. But sooner or later there may be a point where the group's narrative has gathered so much momentum that its leaders are placed in such a position that they can take power without risking anything, they will seize the opportunity because their loyalty to the elites was only transactional to begin with. The trust that the elites gave to the corrupt group leaders turns out to be their weakness. That's probably why essentially all revolutions are subverted and we always go from one set of power-hungry politicians to another.