Are Leninists and Maoist really Communists by definition?

Classes are generally defined with their regards to their means of production. The main classes today being:

1) Bourgeois: A person who owns a means of production and hires others to do the work for him/her and produces nothing themselves.
2) Proletariat: A person who produces goods for someone else and receives, in return, wages.
3) Peasant: Someone who owns land and grows their produce through their own work.

There can be several subcategories, but these three classes will suffice for my argument today.

Both Leninists and Maoists believe in a strong Vanguard Party which is run by men (and some women) whom do not belong to the Proletariat class nor the Peasantry. They may have been a Proletariat earlier in their life, but while working for the Party they do not produce any goods.

The Vanguard party claims to be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," yet not one of them belongs to the Proletarian class. How, then, is it possible for them to dictate in the name of the Proletariat? They're closer to being the Bourgeois than they are to being the Proletariat since they manage over the Proletariat and do not produce anything themselves.

Since the Leninists who belong to a Party cease to be Proletarians, they no longer have the right to rule under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Nor do the Maoists party members who are neither Peasants or Proletarians belong ruling their respective government.

It comes down to this:
Everyone should govern under Communism, otherwise it ceases to be.