The fact of the matter is that Marxism-Leninism is what communism means for 99.9% of historical practice. Someone trying to describe sharing as “communism” when OP is talking about actual modes of production and distribution is missing the forest for the trees. Marx didn’t define communism, he created an ideology that better understands how to actually achieve it and why it is historically compelled, what gives him validity is that the only socialism that has actually existed at scale in real life has come from Marxism-Leninism.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
You clearly didn’t read the links either. There are actively practiced forms of communism listed in there. You’re the ones just being so narrowminded about it’s definition.
For most of historical practice, gay meant happy. We decided to use it for something else only recently in terms of language. That’s how language works.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Not a single one of the ideologies listed on that page has successfully established socialism except for the derivatives of Marxism-Leninism, such as Juche. The closest is Zapatismo, but Zapatismo does not consider itself communist, nor socialist, nor anarchist, and instead is a primarily indigenous ideology related to the Chiapas region.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I mean, both religious and primative communism both exist today, just not at a state level.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
“Religious communism” is not a thing, and early communalism exists in micro-pockets. Neither is the same as what is understood as communism, the theoretical mode of production that predates Marxism.