Marx did, and noted that their property should be confiscated

Marx made a clarification that the property of emigrants and rebels should be confiscated in the process of confiscating property of all citizens and redistributing it to the masses. This is a way of saying "rebels and emigrants aren't immune to this." Trying to identify this as Marx specifically singling out emigrants and rebels as unique cases where their and only their property can be confiscated continues to ignore the larger point that in this system all property would be redistributed anyway.

but practically, communist states haven't done what you've said

There has not yet been a communist state, all of the interpretations of Marx's communism that have been established were at best, proto-capitalist dictatorships. Discussing communism as if it has been exercised in any way by the established states which claimed to be communist is simply inaccurate. This is like discussing the flaws of democracy by looking at African dictatorships claiming to be democracies.

so Marx encouraged communists to see themselves as always right.

No, he encouraged communists to see the proletariat as always right, over and over and over again. This is half of the manifesto. The system's tagline is literally "dictatorship of the proletariat," not "dictatorship of the communist party." The communist party is beholden to the proletariat, and that's the point of Marx's identification of the party being in line with the proletariat's interests.

Plus, it calls for active confiscation of property of rebels, your reading of it is kinda weird. They abolish property, but when they discover a rebel they confiscate their property.

If all property is public, and private property is abolished, then it would only be consistent to confiscate and then redistribute property from individuals being held as private. This goes back to what I said originally: it's consistent with the universal abolition of private property that emigrants' and rebels' property would be seized and redistributed as public property.

And yet, none of this has anything to do with the specific limitation of someone's "desires or ambitions," we're still discussing a very minute tenet of the distribution of property within the economic system.