I saw the idea more as a reflection of a contradiction within his traits, which is also a common human characteristic. Regarding the ‘-isms’ it’s worth noting that nearly all intellectuals associated with Surrealism leaned towards the left wing. A notable exception is Dalí, who was mocked with the ‘Avido Dollars’ anagram.

Dali was a fascist who hits women

There are all combinations of people, what is special/different in Dali comparing to almost all people is that he said that himself about the violence to some women.

Vice article brain,, all the “stories” of Dali hitting women were written,, by Dali himself, notably the case in which a woman enraged him by calling his feet beautiful

Not just that, but a community in the early 1900s...? before communism was even attempted at large scale? you don't have the "it's been tried and it didn't work" excuse to criticize him for.

He was a Communist until his death in the 1970s, but Communism is a pretty broad spectrum and his beliefs moved about it during his life. His public and financial support for Stalinism in France until the mid-1950s was a bad error of judgement.

How can one “be a communist” when the entire idea is predicated on a small central authority telling the rest of the country what to do and how to do it?

Or did you mean “one of the small ruling elite” communists?

> the entire idea

That's absolutely not "the entire idea" of communism. There's this idea of, you know... communes.

What? Central/eastern Europe than remembers communism definitely considers communists bad people.

Most people from eastern Europe agree that communists should not be treated differently than Nazis.

Which is a completely stupid idea, and that's a hill I'm willing to die on.

Nazism is intrinsically violent and atrocious. Communism has been the excuse that made it possible for terrible dictators to commit mass-scale atrocities, but nothing in the writings of Marx encourages those atrocities.

The whole "communism is just as bad as nazism" is a trope that needs to die already. Stalin was bad. His entourage was bad. A group of peasants who want to collectivize their work tools are not bad, have never been, and never will be.

Then why did all of the other countries that try it also commit mass murder and conduct struggle sessions, etc.? Nazism and Communism are extremely different, but both fundamentally involve dehumanizing entire groups of people based on identities- which makes violent atrocities inevitable.

I do not think Marx intended to justify violent atrocities at all, but unknown to him they logically follow from his philosophy, and are essential for putting it into practice. It is the most awful philosophical trap in human history: one where people with compassion, a sense of justice, and a desire to make the world better end up sucked into a bad idea that inevitably turns out horrific.

For the same reason that capitalism also developed by means of violent atrocities, genocide and murder. And it also would do all this again whenever this is needed to maintain itself, so any competing system would need to defend itself in acts that would be portrayed as authoritarian and violent in capitalist societies, even if these societies handwave and find excuses for the same acts if done in capitalism. This is part of the power struggle inherent to the economical system.

I completely disagree- Marxism frames the situation that way, but it is completely mistaken about the reason for the awful acts it is trying to prevent, and therefore takes actions that aren't helpful. This battle isn't between capitalism vs marxism, but two sides actually mostly independent and orthogonal to that.

Marx saw a really real and awful injustice in how workers were treated during the industrial revolution, but he fundamentally misdiagnosed and misunderstood the problem. People were being awful and exploiting others for their own gain under inhumane conditions, because they simply were awful people that dehumanized others and only cared about themselves- and they were in a cultural and legal framework that encouraged and allowed that sort of behavior. It had absolutely nothing to do with capitalism, owning property, or owning a business, but more to do with an ancient medieval ethics that had been around long before capitalism, suddenly being applied with more powerful tools and systems.

As an aside, I think Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality" gets directly at what the real problem is that leads to the atrocities Marx was concerned about. People that are exploiting others in that way- and the people that tolerate/allow it- aren't capitalists per say, but are lacking a sense of what Pirsig calls Quality.

Since communism side-steps the real issue, it creates a new framework where the same type of awful people have even more power to abuse, exploit, and dehumanize others - even while feeling righteous about it, rather than at least a bit guilty like one would hope they would feel.

Our actual current modern society has more correctly diagnosed and solved the problem with new ethical, cultural, and legal norms about how one can and should treat other people, and the natural environment... while still keeping it perfectly legal to start a business, own property, etc. - those are simply amoral activities that have nothing to do with the atrocities Marx was trying to prevent. Plenty of people start and run a business, e.g. with the intention of being socially and environmentally responsible, and doing something helpful and useful with their lives by employing people and solving useful problems- and succeed at it.

A group of peasants or workers who own their farm or factory don't call themselves communists, and operate perfectly well within purely capitalist framework. They buy and sell what they want on the open market and use the same capitalist legal system.

Whereas people who call themselves communists, without exception, go to defend one of dozens bloodiest and nastiest regimes to ever exist. If an ideology brings sociopathic butchers to power not once not twice, but every single time, it's a good time to realize there is something deeply wrong with it.