A standard defense of
communism by leftist talking heads is that there has never really been a "real"
communist state. So what is
true communism? Whatever
Karl Marx had in his drug-addled head? Or the new theories cooked up by his followers? Here is the first flaw in the
true communism defense, the lack of a solid definition. I've yet to run across a group of
commies that did not claim the
true communist mantle.
Marxist-Leninists,
Maoists,
Stalinists,
Trotskyites, you name it. Even the
libertarian socialists, also known as the
anarchists, staked their claims.
Any time a critic points out past communist failures, the dittoheads would point their fingers at the other factions and claim that their derivative was Karl Marx's real vision. Repeat ad nauseam.
Or you can cut the crap and look at it by faction by faction. There has certainly been established regimes of the Stalinist, Maoist and Marxist-Leninist flavors, and they resulted in total disasters. Those factions would like to disown their failures by claiming those weren't communist examples but "state capitalism". They probably thought that the inclusion of the c-word would ease their pains.
Marx stated that the revolution should be lead by a temporary cadre class which would eventually render itself unnecessary. There has yet been a case of the cadre class giving up its power "for the good of the people". In fact, later revisions of Marxist theory, most notably by Mao, would state that the people are in fact too stupid to see the light of the true communist way, and that the cadre class is vital for guidance purposes.
Here lies another flaw in Marx's basic theory. Marx wrote on individualism with comtempt, and he wasn't the first. Jean-Jacques Rousseau trashed the individual spirit, and Marx developed on his views. Individuals are greedy, lazy, stupid bums that needed the intelligensia to guide them to the socialist light. Stalin called individualism a disease. It is funny how he attaches the word "disease" to all these things. Mao called it a cult. Sure, he was one to talk.
It is safe to assume that every communist derivative, including the ever-elusive true communism, requires a slave-like populace with no tolerance for individual dissent. Power to the people indeed. So what did Marx's Apostles use to snap the stupid mass line (Maoist term) out of their individualist minds and join the great socialist revolution? I know that lefties everywhere are very fond of the Chomskian term, "manufacturing consent". I'll leave it at that.
So is true communism might well be one that is devoid of cadres? The libertarian socialists seem to think so. Their preferred goal is the spontaneous revolution, where the people rise up and fight the oppressors without the cadres to lead them. Has it ever happened before? Some point to the Spanish Anarchists, or maybe the Sandinistas. But those are false examples because the Spanish anarchists were a relatively small faction in the complicated Spanish Civil War, and the Sandinistas had a very distinct leadership, namely their 12 commandants. A better example of their "leaderless revolution" would be the plateau years of the Khmer Rouge or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, actually an anomaly from Mao's dictates.
That worked very well indeed.
Despite all the lover-like sighs and dreamy eyes "true communism" would bring, the term has been mangled beyond rescue. True communism has no definition. It is simply a trophy-mandate for the faction-ridden Ultra Left. But there is one certain fact. True communism, despite all the lies surrounding it, has no respect for the individual. That's why the only law the Left has ever universally followed for the past 40 years is "Don't Look Back". For all they would see is famine, gulags, oppression, purges and death.