We are confused by the legacy of marxist/bolshevik ‘communism’. There is nothing in history which decrees that marx/engels or lenin/bolshevism should have determined the definition of communism. The idea was an orphan of the French Revolution and then adopted by a series of thinkers. Its inchoate confusions made the idea vulnerable to closed definition. It is hard to judge the contribution of Marx/Engels: the whole idea could have simply died. They picked it up and gave it a renewed life. It was interpretation that was in a way brilliant and codified the problem with the capitalist revolution, or pseudo-revolution. Whatever the case the fate of the idea at the hands of the marxists to come, and especially the bolsheviks was disastrous. The whole point now has been lost: the future of modernity is separate from that of capitalism. This idea has fallen by the way side, but the future of civilization has been put at risk by the sheer outrageous excess of the capitalists who are victors in a false conflict, that of the bolshevik excess.
We need to extract the original idea from its failures and to reinvent something that was clearly prophesied at the dawn of capitalism: the limits of the economic order spawned by the myths of Adam Smith, and worse his successors.
This is said to the range of liberal life, not the cadre of deadbeat survivors of the second internationale. The idea of neo-communism should be the project of all living in democratic formats, whatever their reality. It is not a pet project of conspiring totalitarians in the legacy groups littering the internet. It must do what ‘democracy’ did: survive its millennia of villification to recreate itself as an idea of freedom, social redefinition, and revolutionary (or electoral) restart. The American Revolution did this, and was betrayed. A new communist democracy must overcame that villification of the Athenians and thence the bolsheviks and reinvent an idea who time is arriving, has come….