It’s not communism if it’s racist or nationalist. Or has billionaires. Or lets capitalists win lawsuits again its citizens when they get mad that a flawed product killed their dad.

It’s just fascism if you subtract all the things that make communism communist.

There’s nothing contradictory in it. This specific mix was never hugely popular but it doesn’t require any cognitive dissonance, all of those are separate ideas.

Communes, to some degree, require alignment on morals and ideas of you do not have a state and a monopoly on violence. Even anarchist communes while technically encouraging cooperation through mutual reliance and that if one does something bad the others can choose not to associate with that individual and not cooperate with them.

Some people take this idea and suggest that alignment based on solidarity of the working class towards each other based on their material circumstances and relation to the means of production is not by itself - enough, and that you need a common “culture” or in the extreme - an ethnostate.

That’s roughly what Mussolini was saying in “The Doctrine of Fascism”, and there are many fascists and nationalists who believe communism is possible only amongst white people, or even just people of the same ethnic and cultural background.

I don’t agree with it, but that’s at least my interpretation of how economic egalitarianism and collectivism can work with darwinist racist views.

If you also do not agree with it, that is why being a “brocialist” is bad, you should of course focus in on the economic matters and be a materialist in all things, but Marx isn’t end all be all of progressiveness and in the modern day if you want to actually be woke - you need to also incorporate intersectionality into your views of social injustices like LGBTQ rights and gender equality and anti-racism, lest you leave that door open all the way to the ‘third position’.

You wouldn’t want to be this silly, would ya?