Wilson's Attorney General put the socialist Debs into prison. Harding got him out. The Wilson administration also sent radicals directly to Russia on the "Red Ship." The leftists who founded the Communist party hated Wilson as much or more than they hated Republicans.
Wilson clearly was a statist, though his response would be that he was increasing the power of the state now so as to decrease it later, breaking up monopolies in order to restore free competition and creating decentralized power in place of centralized power. I don't buy any of that, but his actions show that he was far from a Communist. That is to say, he did not support violent revolution or the confiscation of private property. Though he did represent a great break with what came before, in the context of 1912, Wilson was less socialist than Debs or even Roosevelt.
I think Wilson and his war were bad influences. Robert Nisbet, Arthur Ekirch, and Robert Higgs among others have dealt with the great growth of state power under his administration. But just as the New Left habit of calling everyone one disagreed with a "fascist" distorted things and irritated people, so the freepspeak crutch of calling those further to the left "socialists" or "communists" also gets on the nerves. If you wanted to call Wilson a socialist, I don't think I'd have objected, but given the kinds of things Lenin said about Wilson, and what Wilson thought of Lenin, I don't think you can get away with calling Wilson a Communist.
Wilson's no favorite of mine, and I don't think I'd have bothered responding, but after all of the "Lincoln was a socialist" rhetoric I find at Free Republic, I don't have much patience left. I think it obvious that the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns and Romanovs were better than the Communists and Nazis who replaced them, but to argue that opposing those dynasties makes one a Communist is too close to smearing those who opposed slavery as socialists for my tastes.