I tend to define myself by the differences between my own beliefs and that of other movements within communism, so that's how I'll introduce my own beliefs today. This is a debate subreddit of course so feel free to challenge any of my beliefs. Once I've explained my beliefs and how they differ from that of others, I'll explain how I see it coming about.

Vs Anarchism

Since I'm on an anarchist subreddit, an anarchism is one of the largest (and I realize broad) strains of socialism this seems like a nice place to start.

Anarchism refers to the removal of all illegitimate hierarchy, including the state (defined in Weberian terms) and the oppression of capital. That is how I define it, and it is meant to separate the anarchist from the straw-anarchism in the forms of "might is right" and "why should my psychiatrist have the authority to declare me a danger to myself" (such as described in On Authority) varieties. Which I recognize as false.

My issue with anarchism is simply that I believe that in its quest to remove illegitimate authority it goes past the point of marginal utility to the subsequent society. Yes, there are many oppressive institutions beyond capitalism, class reductionism is a mistake on the part of Marxism. However I consider the state a useful tool for the efficient operation of society. Consider that the ideal anarchism runs on consensus, sending delegates from communes to meetings of communes that speak only on the behalf of the consensus, and that these meetings of communes must also reach consensus. In this way, one person can halt the vision of an entire people.

I realize one may tackle this by saying that the majority can break off and form a separate commune or the minority might leave (at either the commune or meeting of communes level). This indicates however that it will become very difficult to get any completely agreed upon action, if such a system were in place there might still be nations using CFCs and we may not have any ozone left. Tragedy of the commons where the commons is the world.

The other approach is to let it slide into majority rules, which has its own problems. Namely, dictatorship of the majority or mob rule becomes a real possibility. Especially where large regions may share certain beliefs and thus cannot be brought into line by the ostracism of the rest of the world, or where the events in question happen in the fury of a short period of time. What is necessary is some sort of constitutionalism, and outlined laws, at which point one has created a state.

Vs Orthodox Marxism

The Marxist definition of state describes one role of the state, but it does not describe the state as a whole. I'd also say that the role of the state is not so much to ensure the dominance of the ruling class is continued but that the current class system is intact. From this perspective, the state suddenly appears more of a entity for conservatism than for capitalism. In this sense it has a more recognizable use to a communist society.

Aside from that, class consciousness, dialectics, and various forms of alienation are all either over-complications of simple phenomena, constructs which lead to some form of narrative fallacy, or both. They all lead to the belief that socialism is inevitable due to the dialectical turning of history which is not so easily supportable today.

When we ignore the "inevitability" of socialism, I do however think that historical materialism is a wonderfully helpful filter to understand history. It describes the transition from feudalism to capitalism perfectly (because it existed when that process was still on-going), and we'll see how it might apply going forward.

Vs Marxist-Leninism (-Maoism, etc)

I don't support mass murderers and undemocratic dictators who establish themselves as the new upper class, whether or not they say they are doing it for the benefit of the proletariat or not. If you do not agree with this assessment of the history of the USSR, China, and co then you are woefully ignorant or maliciously biased. As far as I'm concerned, communism in Russia ended when the Soviets lost control over the executive branch, or even as early as Lenin ending the democratic assembly that he himself promised the Russian people but would have seen him removed from power.

On the theory side, everything Marxism got wrong they expanded upon and made worse.

Vs Democratic Socialism

Marx was right, what we call liberal democracy is liberal oligarchy. The bourgeois have to strong a hold on the state apparatus to release it into the hands of a movement that would see them deposed. Revolution is the only way to win for socialism.

Vs Left Communism

Too focused on their hatred of Leninism (see: constant references to "tankies"), too defeatist (complaining how there are only a few of them left), and anti-parliamentarianism is wrong in my view: while I'm revolutionary, a communist party is a convenient way to get publicity, and it isn't the reason Russia went the way it did. Like Lenin, they also reject democratic assemblies that represent everybody in a given area, instead organizing more often as worker's councils, which I do not see necessarily a good thing as it could disenfranchise groups that had not held jobs before the revolution (women in the middle east, etc).

Vs Minarchist Communism

If you're going to have a state, you might as well not limit it beyond usefulness. Things like environmental regulation are extremely helpful. While there needs to be a free and democratic society, a little bit of influence on economic, social, and environmental policy is not going to end the world (the definition of statism). Basically, the limits the state imposes on itself (hopefully via constitution) should be decided by the people, and not be too extreme in either direction.

Vs Market Socialism

Either requires too much state-control (like in Yugoslavia) or is susceptible to many of the same criticisms as capitalism (Mutualism).

How?

Movements all over the world already embrace freedom and equality in equal measure, that's the source of Zapatismo, Rojava, etc. It has been proven it can work on the large scale in those places and Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War. With a little bit of activism (I take inspiration from anarchist Platformism in this case), we can do great things, just give it a little time and a little economic unrest. Maybe a few more third-world victories, and socialism could be a force to be reckoned with. Of course one might ask why this particular set of beliefs will triumph, while I could just say they're better that's obviously not extremely convincing. I believe that this sort of statist communism is likely to come to the forefront because we've already sort of arrived at this compromise in our state, it is just a matter of the overthrow of capital and continuation of the state serving this role. Plus it may serve as a compromise position between any future libertarian and authoritarian socialist movements should they come to power as partners (like in Catalonia).

Feel free to join me.