"We have enough for everyone, and it is being deliberately gatekept by the wealthy" does not logically equate to "therefore if we removed that gatekeeping we'd have Stalinism" without a whole bunch of extra steps not currently in evidence.
For instance, there's no reason why we can't say "sell your food for lower prices than the maximum the market will bear; the government will pay you to make sure you're still solvent" (this is called subsidies, we do it all the time). We also have a lot of antitrust levers at our disposal that have been growing rusty from disuse since Reagan's administration decided that monopolies were Good For Us, Actually.
I'm not proposing any specific solutions to this problem; I'm merely stating that it is a problem. If anything's "fucking insane" here, it's responding to that with ad hominem attacks and some very thick sarcasm about communism.
Furthermore, "communism" as an economic philosophy does not inherently lead to the specific circumstances that we saw in the Soviet Union during the 20th century. I know people tend to start crying "uh-uh-uhh! No True Scotsman fallacy!" when one points out that the USSR was not, in fact, doing a great job at communism, but it really wasn't. At first they tried, but it very quickly descended into a fairly standard authoritarian regime where economic decisions were being made not based on what was best for the people, but on what was best for the dictators and their cronies. (And funny enough, those same people don't seem to have a problem with the idea that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not, in fact, particularly democratic...)
People think that being the first soldier over the wall in a siege, veritably a death wish, was a punishment reserved for criminals or something, but actually it was a mechanism of social mobility in an ancient society. An individual who breached the enemy's defenses was honored and paid richly.
You can observe the dynamics just as readily in modern society, watching a show like Survivor which puts small-group social politics front and center. Often the players of the game wish that everyone would just go along with the plan. Sometimes it does happen, but just as often a few people see a better opportunity for themselves by breaking with the popular consensus. It doesn't even have to be the same people every time. It's just always better for some people to try going a different way: making their own alliance or their own city or country. Both the drive towards individuality and its results, strife and resilience, are necessarily eternal in the cycle of life.
If you want to be glib, there is a light and a dark side to the force.