You'll note that I specifically said that it is silly and incorrect to think that any revolutionary socialist regime at about the same time would have to be "communist" (which is to say, Leninist). A revolutionary socialist regime in Germany or anywhere else does not have to be an authoritarian one-party state with a sealed economy just because that's what happened in Russia - and in fact it's pretty certain that it wouldn't be. It need only be a) revolutionary and b) socialist.
....
But there's an excellent chance that they might
call themselves Communist, especially if no one else has already appropriated the term as Lenin did OTL.
Even if they don't take Marx as their sole guiding light, European or American (north or south!) socialists of the post-*WWI period are very likely to put a lot of store in him, and Marx certainly did intend and expect that socialism would evolve into communism; therefore a party that sees itself as ultra-progressive and "in front" will likely claim that mantle, unless their specific theory says that no kind of communism is the goal.
But communism, broadly defined as a society which has dispensed with private property and is about sharing the creation and distribution of wealth as duties and rights of all people, is clearly a logical conclusion of socialistic reform. Socialistic reformers might take care to set bounds on how far their reforms are intended to go, but the OP after all
specifies some kind of power that at least calls itself "communist."
So, I Blame Communism, if you were right that Communism somehow equals Leninism, then for purposes of this thread you'd be forced to try and envision movements tantamount to Leninism somewhere.
Or we can relax your equation quite a bit, and then a broad range of movements might be included....
...as long as they looked forward to somehow achieving something that might reasonably be called "communism."
Heck, my right-wing Catholic mother says Catholic monasteries are "communist" and in that case she thinks it's a good thing. (Because they are
Christian communists, you see.)
So the Brazilian version might conceivably be some sort of liberation-theology Marxist/Thomist fusion. That would be pretty anachronistic without some much earlier POD that shows how a truly radical political/social/economic movement does grow up in the Roman Catholic tradition about a century before such a movement really did occur OTL, and then how it can take over Brazil.
I suspect that there were such movements among serious Catholic believers quite a long time ago, it's just that the Church is pretty good at suppressing that kind of thing. They can't always see to it that the dissenters are stopped completely but they can always, in the end, declare them heretics and toss them out of the Church. I daresay that if the Brazilian movement was not atheistic and many (if not all) of its chief actors thought of themselves as true Catholics, the Pope would still excommunicate them.
But for quite a long time, progressivism and atheism, or at any rate anticlericism, went pretty much hand in hand; the Anglosphere was something of an exception but even there, in Britain and the USA in the 19th century, a big part if not all of labor radicalism and the like was atheistic or at least iconoclastic. I'm thinking of something in one of Hobsbawm's books, probably IIRC
The Age of Empire, where he asserts that a typical workingman's movement library would be much more likely to have books on atheism than Marx, and he was talking about the USA or Britain or both.
So a liberation-theology Communism suitable for Brazil requires a POD that shows how that particular brand of social democracy would build up its credibility and currency there to the point that it leads the radical movement when its moment comes.
Or of course we can go with traditional atheistic social-democracy and leave the Trinity out of it.
Anyway, liberation-theologians or not, I bet they at least fancy themselves serious Marxists of some kind, whatever else they might also think they are about.
And thus, they'd be defining "communism" in a way consistent with Marx, if not necessarily the way Lenin read it.
Probably a similary question was already posted, however i put this challenge: develop a TL where another country, more liking a great european power but the choose is free, developed a communist regime.
If you want the formation of URSS is permitted, but i think is more suggestive if the Whites won the Russian civil war and the nation you choose become the main light bearer of International. There is already a TL on progress about communist USA, so select that nation will be a bit clichè. Cuba and China the same.
Reversal governments are allowed (example marxist Germany and fascist France).
Have fun!
See, the OP doesn't actually demand that the Bolsheviks fail in Russia, just indicates that that would be nice. But if people think it is unthinkable that a Red revolution can happen in Germany all by itself (I think one problem would be that the Entente powers would intervene to stop it, and they'd have the help of German reactionaries too) WI the Bolsheviks are there, hanging on in Russia, and then around 1920 or '21 or so, then there is the Spartacist uprising in Germany? And if the Bolsheviks had done a little better in their war on Poland, or were in the middle of their advance toward Warsaw when the Germans rose up, might there not be a link-up, enough to deter the Entente powers from daring to invade--or they do invade, and then a lot of their soldiers mutiny (and wind up citizens of Soviet Germany--they'd almost surely call it that, it doesn't imply that Lenin or any of his Russian successors rule there).
Well, there's another way besides Brazil that satisfies the strict stipulation if not the entire intended spirit of the OP. Besides, WI after helping to guarantee the initial success of the German Reds, shortly after that the Bolsheviks lose their grip in Russia and then there is a belated second White takeover there--but meanwhile the revolution consolidates itself in Germany?
Problem is that socialist regimes tend to lose popularity quickly once the big issue that brought them to power (normaly peace, land reform or anti-colonialism) is resolved.
A cynic might say, that's why they are careful not to solve that issue!
"Peace, land, bread!" was Lenin's promise to the Russian peasants and proletarians. They didn't get a whole lot of any of that, as individuals anyway, did they.
Besides, socialists are forthrightly setting the goal of a radical reconstruction of society, and from their point of view
that is the big issue that brings them to power. It takes a while to "resolve" such a grandiose scheme.