Then you fail because you are trying to understand communism without reading communists! This is not the ivory tower, it is total basics. At least read Marx and Engels, though those are pretty hard right of the bat, Lenin and Mao are explaining things neatly, not to mention they have fresher looks on things like Marx did not elaborate on neither imperialism nor contradictions because imperialism did not exist in his time yet (he did predicted it will happen but had no observations so as scientist he would not write tomes about that, while Lenin seen its development first hand), and the Mao's idea of contradictions is basically just dialectical materialism explained for practical use by people who are not academic philosphers. I read everything on that list and much more and it's good course on understanding basics (basics!) of socialism - note that "Capital" is not even on the list, though at least first book absolutely should be as the finale.

I think being three dimensional in thought is a positive.

In though as in learning things is, but not in accepting what you learn is nonsense.

Fabianism

Fabianism was one of the most reactionary trends of socialdemocracy, they were the first to betray working class to serve capitalists.

[–] aninorganicorganism@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

i mostly mean that im okay with holding more than one sides views, ill happily hold communist, socialist, and capitalist views at once while holding spiritual and aspiritual beliefs. it might be eclectic but it makes the most sense to me. and im not so evangelical in disregarding capitalism or communism entirely, so a hybrid of socialism and capitalism or socialism and communism seem equally merited to me, but again thats just opinion and we are both biased in that.