Communism names three distinct things that are often conflated: a political goal (classless, stateless society with common ownership of the means of production), a body of theory (accounts of how such a society might be achieved), and a set of historical movements (parties, revolutions, states claiming the name). These three do not align neatly. The goal predates any particular theory; the movements have often contradicted both.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels formulated the most influential European communist theory, grounding it in historical materialism and the analysis of class struggle. In this framework, communism is the resolution of the contradiction between social production and private appropriation — the end point of a historical process driven by the development of productive forces. But Marxist communism is one lineage among several. Anarcho-communism, developed by Pyotr Kropotkin and others within the anarchist tradition, pursues the same goal through the immediate construction of non-hierarchical, federated communes rather than through seizure of state power. Antonio Gramsci redirected communist strategy toward cultural and intellectual work, recognizing that hegemony operates through consent, not just coercion.

The concept is contested in part because European communist theory treats commons-based social organization as a future to be achieved, when Indigenous societies across the world organized collective stewardship of land, resources, and knowledge long before European political philosophy began theorizing the problem. Decolonial critique observes that Marxist communism, despite its opposition to capitalism, often reproduces the settler-colonial assumption that land is a resource to be administered rather than a relation to be maintained. Indigenous resurgence movements offer living alternatives to both capitalism and European communist models — alternatives grounded in existing relational practices rather than in theoretical projections.