I. Generally

“A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies”

– Karl Marx & Frederick Engels[1]

Communism is the goal in the same way that perfection is, in that we strive ever towards it, but will never attain it. This is due mainly to the limitations of our fallible species and the chaos of the real world, but also because that fallibility causes each of us to have a different and ever changing concept of it, despite the clear definition provided by Marx and Engels.

The reason we will never reach a perfect form of Communism are many, but the main reasons are definitional, in that it is necessarily an ever evolving concept as we understand more about the natural world. We face internal disputes among those in the movement as to what our end goal is, as well as how to implement that goal if we were ever to achieve the impossible task of settling on it. Finally, we face the eternal struggle against reactionary belief systems hoping to maintain or resurrect capitalism.

None of this is to say that we should abandon our quest, as even coming close to our goal will achieve great things for the Working Class.

II. Perfection & Communism

“Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor.”   

– Anne Lamott[2]

The differing opinions on what constitutes “Communism” (i.e. what the word itself means) is not necessarily a bad thing, as it provides the opportunity for the theory to develop alongside the understanding of human nature and other fields of knowledge, and therefore goes some way to preventing us falling to the dogmatism that has been such a plague on past systems and efforts.

Seeking a perfect understanding of these things is the path to perfecting Communism, but we must acknowledge that just as no one will ever achieve perfection in things like art or writing, the struggle for it is what makes each attempt better than the last. We improve it by striving to perfect it. Once we stop striving for perfection, either because we believe we have achieved it, or because it seems too far out of our grasp, we fail, and our cause fails with us. While each attempt, though not perfect, brings us closer to that goal, even if it is ultimately impossible.

It is the striving for it that we must settle ourselves to be satisfied with, and that will see us to ultimate victory for the Working Class.

A.  A Fitting Example

Marx described Communism as a Spectre haunting the Ruling Class as the Workers began to fully understand the how corrupt the Ruling Class truly is. The use of the world “spectre” by Marx is fitting here, as it describes an entity that is unable to be touched but can be felt[3]. One that can only barely be seen even as it affects us, and is often a remnant of those that existed before us. It presents a rare moment of rhetorical flourish for who is normally a precise and materialist philosopher that from that flourish reveals a truth of the core concept described.

Just like such a ghost, the very concept of Communism is difficult to describe in a way that can be understood in the material world around us, with the power of capitalism pressing on from every direction. We know what it is, or at least we have an idea of it. In any case, “perfection” is not only refining what is known, but refining what defines “perfection” for our purposes.

“Spectre” (or “Specter”) can also mean the threat of something long feared, just as the Ruling Class rightly fear the eventual repercussions of their long abuse of their power. Thus every concept developed for defining our cause must in the very least understand the need for it to be a danger to capitalism (and capitalists) in some way. Beyond the outlines constructed by our forbearers, this is as good a firm definition as we are likely to get.

B.  Marx & Engels

Nearly every known culture has some concept of a ghost or haunting presence, and so too has each culture had an idea in one form or another of the system which came to be known as Communism as a natural organizing system for groups of people. This is because we are by our nature a species that cooperates with one another, which is central to what Communism or socialism is really about. It was this level of coordination and cooperation that allowed a species with no natural advantages to rise to the unassailable position in the natural world we now occupy. It was not an invention of Marx or Engels (nor anyone else) any more than electricity was an invention of Thales of Miletus or Benjamin Franklin.

As such, the greatest contribution made to the world by Marx and Engels was not Communism, but the theories they developed and improved upon that gave rise to the understanding that Communism was the better system, as well as giving it a name. Their analytical framework coalesced with earlier contributions like Hegel’s Dialectics[4] into the methods of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, which when used by our forbearers revealed to them the reality of class struggle. Our understanding of Communism was therefore the result of the analysis of human history using this more scientific method of synthesizing truth from multiple positions.

III. The Spectrum Between Extremes

“For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.”

― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics[5]

In any debate on the existing economic systems one cannot avoid hearing at least one person from either side of the argument make the claim that such-and-such nation had not employed “real capitalism” or “real Communism” in an attempt to discredit the perceived mistakes of that nation in their efforts to implement whatever system the claimant advocates as a failure to realize the ultimate goal rather than mistakes made in its pursuit. They believe that only with this theoretical “real” system would the goals of it be achieved. The use of this fallacious argument[6] is detrimental to any cause, as it denies the successes achieved while acknowledging the mistakes. It pushes the narrative that the ultimate goal not worth pursuing because it cannot be done flawlessly.

In order to properly understand an idea between opposing viewpoints we must define the boundaries of the argument. The two extremes that make up the absolute boundaries of any economic system are Communism/ Anti-Capitalism on the one hand (the left), and Capitalism/ fascism on the other (right side), with the theoretical “perfect” example of that system being at the farthest end of each side (note that for this example we will disregard anarchism as idealistic and for the purposes of simplicity). This progression between the two make up the scale on which any project will at some point sit. Hegel and later Marx understood that the back and forth that the dialectical method causes was both necessary for achieving a synthesis of evolving ideas and unavoidable as a result of the method itself. Debate should therefore never be considered as settled. The desire for perfection must motivate our actions, with each of us at the same time understanding the futility of that goal.

A. Human Nature

Anything in regards to humans needs to be understood as point on a scale or spectrum. No individual one of us is ever completely one thing or the other, or even at one continuous point from one moment to the next, be it in regards to gender, sexuality, intelligence, or any other trait or ideology. This was well understood by the Ancient Greek philosophers, who discussed at great length how the traits that make us up all exist at some point on a spectrum between two extremes, and the interaction between those points in turn make up each of us. For Aristotle, the spectrums were named after the virtues and the distances between the extremes were defined by excess and deficiency, and the “perfect point” to achieve moral goodness (or eudemonia) was the midpoint between those extremes and could only be achieved by constant and conscious practice, instructed by diligent instruction in moral and natural philosophies.

Our goal is not to achieve the medium, but to achieve the excess. Even this being the case, our work towards that goal must be informed using the same principles laid out in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. We must strive to practice Communism both by action and by expanding our understanding of the world around us (including not only Communist theory but all of the sciences). By better understanding our own natures and the world we can better understand our goal, and better know how to implement it under in the world we now occupy.

Just as each person’s makeup is a nexus of different and changing points, so too will that individual’s views and understandings of Communism be different and changing depending as it does on that individual nexus. By employing the methods of Material Dialectics we may be able to narrow and group these viewpoints to unify even the largest groups into adopting a more coherent understanding of our overall goals, but we can never achieve perfect unity of thought, nor should that be a primary goal as it would eliminate flexibility and create mindless dogmatism, resulting in stagnant theory unable to meet the needs or material realities that the future may bring.

B. The Natural World & the Forces Opposing Us

“If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of ‘eternal justice’ or some other preconceived idea, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.”

— Joseph Stalin[7]

Communism not only involves the nature of human beings, but of the natural world around us. As such, we must be committed to better understanding both, and as we gain that better understanding, we will discover what more there is to learn. Like ancient cartographers realizing that each new shore discovered only changed the horizons, the boundaries of our reach constantly expand with our grasp. Where once we were trying to look over mountain ranges, now we attempt to see the universe. Where once we only sought to live in harmony with those related to us, now we Communists seek to unite the entire world.

Also similarly to those explorers, we determine any position by its relative to known quantities, such as triangulation using the location of known landmarks in cartography (or by the 1 value in mathematics). As more locations are discovered, more precise and expansive maps are possible. In this case, we often get a more refined understanding of our goal by its relationship to those opposing us, and as such are more able to confront those forces (and confront them we must). The complexity of this undertaking cannot be understated, as we map our theory as it relates to innumerable different viewpoints or beliefs held not only by our enemies but by those within our movement. Again only by engaging in the drawn out struggle of Material Dialectics can we determine our own position as a group. In this example, Material Dialectics are the toolset we use to map our world, rather than the cartographers compass and quill.

This process of discovery does not have an end point because there is no such end point for knowledge. The more we discover, the more is revealed to be unknown.

IV. The Pull Against Reaction

“You can kill a man, but you can’t kill an idea.”

— Medgar Evers

Medgar Evers was a civil rights activist who died fighting the same forces opposing us today, and his quote above cuts both ways. Our enemies have ideas too, and their ideas are every bit as resilient as our own. Despite the fantasies some have of an eventual perfectly composed anti-capitalist paradise, human greed will never completely disappear, and the greedy will never surrender to the needs of the many and give up the idea of a world that benefits them alone. This was learned at great cost by the Bolsheviks, for as soon as the October Revolution had concluded the newly established U.S.S.R. faced violent opposition not only from the Monarchist Loyalists inside Russia, but from nearly every other developed nation[8] seeking to reestablish the Czars, and the eventual fall of that project was even more evidence of the eternal nature of our work. We face not only pervasive anti-Communist propaganda, but actual physical violence against our cause, as Evers himself found.

None of this is to say that we should not continue in our struggle, as while our class enemies represent a positive oppositional force pushing against our own and the boundaries of our spectrum contract and expand with every increase in human knowledge, surrendering in this tug-of-war would see the revolution dying and the rise of an unassailable fortress of reaction. Besides this, every inch we pull in the direction of our cause makes the world just a little better for those living in it. This outcome justifies the struggle even in failure.

V. Conclusion

“One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

– Albert Camus[9]

Now we understand that our struggle is a constant chain of actions towards an unachievable goal:

1.         To implement an idea we must understand it.

2.         To understand it we must describe it.

3.         To describe it we must refine it.

4.         To refine it we must implement it.

5.         All through this process we must fight against reactionary forces bend on our destruction.

It is then not suitable to simply say that we seek perfect Communism. We must seek to determine what that word means in according to the conditions we face, and how those conditions change the concept itself. We can only do this by constant analysis and pushing the scope or boundaries of our total knowledge. When we have found those boundaries and attempted our goal, we will then see how far off we are from the perfection we seek, and we must do this while the forces against us attempt their own projects. This is an eternal process involving self-criticism and engaging in good-faith dialectics among those holding similar views, and that results in less development if the debate is held among those with the same outlook.

While we struggle with the definitional concerns of our cause, we also face the reactionary forces aligned against us. Therefore our struggles are both internal and external. Both must be confronted with our whole being, or we will fail either by losing our way in constant debate, or by the destruction wished upon us by fascists.

We therefore set ourselves an impossible but crucially necessary journey. One in which we only have an idea of the distant goal, but no clear path to walk nor even a map to guide us. But with each step we make the future of our species just a little brighter and the way a little more clear. We build from past experience towards perfection, never reaching that goal, but achieving great things by the very act of striving.

References

---

[1] Engels, F., & Marx, K. (1848). The Communist manifesto.

[2] Lamott, A. (1980). Bird by bird. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

[3] See: SPECTER Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster (Accessed 08/12/2026).

[4] Hegel, G. W. F. (1812-1818) Science of Logic. Humanities Press Hegel’s Science of Logic.Joseph C. Flay – 1990 – Proceedings of the Hegel Society of America. See also: Sarlemijn, A. Hegel’ Dialectic. D. Reidel Publishing.

[5] Aristotle (1836). Brewer, John S. (ed.). The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. See also: Nicomachean Ethics – Wikipedia (Accessed 08/12/2026).

[6] See: No true Scotsman – Wikipedia (Accessed 08/12/2026).

[7] Stalin, J. (1938). Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

[8] See: Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War – Wikipedia. (Accessed 08/07/2026).

[9] Camus, Albert (1955). The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 123.