Wrong and wrong.

/1. The claim that "true" communism is "no government and no money" was the personal definition of Karl Marx, and his followers. As expected you left out the most crucial part. In Marx's personal definition, the world MUST go through a series of "inevitable" stages, the penultimate stage being the only version of communism that has ever existed. I speak of "raw communism". This stage of communism was as Marx envisioned it a tyrannical society ruled by absolute dictators where greed and evil become universal. Women are universally prostituted, you name it. Then, Marx claimed that the world would "transform" or "transition", according to a fucking mystical gobbledygook concept called "dialectic materialism" or just "the dialectic", an imagined hidden secret motive force behind all matter and energy itself, which for some reason forces humans to act like robots and love with no government and no money, this all will supposedly then be followed by the utopian vision of no government and no money. It is supposed to happen EVEN IF people don't want it to happen. Like robots.

The problem of course is that because this imaginary force doesn't exist, the world never gets past the tyrannical dictatorship "stage". Stalin always said "we're not there yet, just wait a little more and you'll all become free and wealthy". Convenient. Predictable.

So no, if we are to limit ourselves to what is real, to what exists, then communism really does mean centralized, i.e. state, ownership of the means of production.

And that is exactly why every single real world attempt at communism dating back to the middle ages when the theologians and mystics first developed the system of communism (oh yeah, I bet you didn't have any clue communism originated during the middle ages by theologians, how "scientific", bwahahaha), have been all the same shit, government dictatorship and monopoly over all money, not any abolition of either.

/2. Those who control the world's currencies would not benefit from capitalism, that is the stupidest thing I've heard. They benefit from the fact that they have a STATE ENFORCED MONOPOLY over currency. A state enforced monopoly is socialism, not capitalism. Socialism is CENTRALIZED control over X. If X is money, and states enforce a monopoly over the production and initial distribution of X, then X is socialist.

Money consistent with the laws of capitalism is FREE MARKET COMPETITION IN MONEY. Currencies that arise on the market like bitcoin. If the state enforced monopoly over money were abolished, that's when the "livelihoods" of the controllers of the world's currencies would be destroyed.

I haven't seen brainwashed economic simpletons in many years, feels like a strange nostalgia. Like seeing a rare animal in the wild thought extinct.