DuWayne seems to argue that communism is a "pure ideology":
Most ideology looks sexy as hell on paper and sound great from the mouths of charismatic philosophers. But when it comes to real world application, it starts falling apart. On paper, it is inevitable that the one factor repeatedly ignored, is human nature. There is some default assumption that humans will transcend millennia of our evolution and make it all fit together like so.There are definitely examples of this sort of "pure ideology": Christianity and Islam spring immediately to mind. These ideologies certainly ignore fundamental facts about human nature, especially that human beings are sexual beings, and that sex is both fun and — with modern technology: contraception, antibiotics, condoms and safe abortion — need not be any more dangerous than riding a motorcycle.
The question of course is whether communism is such a "pure ideology" and whether it ignores human nature at a fundamental level. We communists certainly say that communism is a science, that it is reality- and results-oriented*, and that it takes into account human nature at a fundamental level.
*Bob Avakian's polemics against "pragmatism" are best read as polemics against a narrow, superficial expediency, rather than an argument in favor of essentialism and against pragmatism in the broadest results-oriented sense.
Of course, we could be wrong. But if we are in fact wrong, it seems incumbent on critics to offer actual examples where we are wrong. Merely observing uncontroversially that communists have explicitly written some ideas down, and have therefore created an ideology, does not argue that communism is a pure ideology, an essentialist ethical-political system that contradicts or ignores important scientific truths about the world in the same sense that many religious ideologies contradict and ignore scientific truth.
To a certain extent, the admonition against dogmatism, essentialism and ideological authoritarianism should be a "standing order" for all intellectuals. Even scientists all-to-often fall into dogmatic ruts, ignoring or prejudicially dismissing uncomfortable evidence and challenging new ideas.
But the question goes deeper than that. Dogmatism — ideological authoritarianism — is the sine qua non of religion; take out the dogmatism (i.e. scripture) and you are left with ordinary, natural opinion, preference and psychology. If you take the dogmatism out of communism, if you read Marx, Lenin, Mao, and a host of other communist intellectuals critically, applying one's own observation, natural reason and ethical intuition, do you lose the "communism"? I say no: I have read Marx, Lenin, Mao, and a host of other communist intellectuals, I have read them critically (or so I believe), and I've come to the conclusion that despite larger and smaller errors they make a lot of sense at a fundamental level.
There is only one fundamental doctrine of communism: All relations of exploitation and oppression — economic, political, social and psychological — are morally wrong. But this is a doctrine, not a dogma: it's not presented as factual truth but as a defining moral position. If you disagree, you are not mistaken in the same sense that you are mistaken if you disagree that the Earth orbits the sun. If you disagree you are simply an enemy of communism. If you agree, the only question is what kind of communist are you?