So you say that there are no “non-authoritarian” communists. I guess I take a slight issue with this. Just because a lot of historical communist states have become one party dictatorships doesn’t mean that all of them have to be. I don’t see why you couldn’t have a communist state with democratic values, separation of powers, and plurality. Even if you believe that the state is the sole authority and does have authority to do things, it doesn’t mean it can’t have a concept of inalienable or unenumerated rights which the state can’t take away.

Sure you can say that the working class has authority in a communist state. But that’s somewhat of a transitory period isn’t it? Eventually that society over time becomes classless, and then everyone must be represented to avoid autocracy.

So originally it was used to refer to hardline communists by the critics of the USSRs suppression of the Hungarian revolution in the 50s. It’s now used to refer to more authoritarian sects of communism, and has been adopted by some of these authoritarian communists to refer to themselves. You can read more here.