@Deleted User Lenin definition of communist is the one who participates in organization under a unified leadership and discipline.

really?

yep

i thought under communism there were no leaders

where does lenin say that

You were wrong

kk show me

i am interested

@Deleted User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Left-Wing"_Communism:_An_Infantile_Disorder

communism wouldn't be communism if there were leaders. under communism there is no money, no government, and therefore no economic imbalances and no power imbalances

@Deleted User wrong. Leaders will exist always. Under communism they won't have private property that is the difference.

no one would have private property under communism

Right, including leadership.

nah, there wouldn't be leadership under communism. because the whole essence of communism is about economic, social, and political equality. whenever there's an imbalance in economic/social/political power, there is social unrest. that's why marx thought communism was the endpoint of the history/evolution of society. feudalism --> mercantilism --> capitalism --> socialism --> communism. throughout time, economic, social, and political power has been spreading throughout society. it used to be e.g. that the king held all the economic, social, and political power. but it's continued to spread more and more, because society is better and stabler that way

>because the whole essence of communism is about economic, social, and political equality

Where did you take that from?

everything

that's what communism is

Everything?

That is a very huge citation.

marx thought that the history of society had to do with class struggle

Can you narrow it please for me.

Were there no leaders under the primitive communism?

"primitive communism" is different because it has a different type of division of labor. communism would still maintain social solidarity through interdependency between individuals, while "primitive communism" maintained social solidarity through likeness.

"the more primitive a society is, the more it is characterized by mechanical solidarity. The members of that society are more likely to resemble each other and share the same beliefs and morals. As societies become more advanced and civilized, the individual members of those societies start to become more distinguishable from one another. Solidarity becomes more organic as these societies develop their divisions of labor."

Social solidarity is against leadership?

the division of labor only becomes more and more complex and more specialized as society grows. and society remains cohesive by the fact that we all depend on each other. the doctor depends on the farmer to grow his food, the farmer depends on the doctor to treat him when he's sick, etc. on the other hand, "primitive communism" maintains social solidarity and cohesiveness via likeness. people who lived under "primitive communism" felt close to each other due to their likeness, shared beliefs, etc. the larger society grows, the more specialized it becomes, and the more interdependent we grow of one another.

today, what holds our society together is how interdependent we are on one another

How it applies to the absence of leadership?

i'm saying your primitive communism and marxist communism aren't the same thing.

I did not say they are

no one would call tribalism "primitive communism". they are very different. i'm assuming what you mean by "primitive communism" is tribalism

Lets get back to the topic of the leadership please

lol

leadership is incompatible with communism

that's what communism is

What if I say it is compatible and communism is something else?

wazzap

@Deleted User I knew you were a troll!

@Firefly Real nice leftist unity you got here.

this article might help https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

@Deleted User liberal propaganda is very strong in the West. To the point the subject denies himself a need to organize and have any leadership.

Is making a sheep out of a rebel.

Propaganda is spewed from both sides!

@Firefly More like a sheep from their birth.

Rebels in the West are also disorganized and submissive. All they taught is to crush banks and shout chants on rallies.

what sort of organization would you like to see more of?

@kwame I'm for highly authoritarian type of organization which is above any external law for its members and for absolute discipline.

democratic centralism type stuff with party discipline? i only see that in ML and maoist orgs really. maybe some of the more illegalist anarchists

@kwame I think we can narrow democratic centralism to centralism. Democracy is not mandatory.

Why so? I think it's pretty important. remember that the party controls membership and member education

Party made too many mistakes in the past. They elected Chruschev, Gorbachev.

They turned to consumerism away from communism.

That is a direct result of democracy.

im not sure it is. it's kind of a problem that a few dudes could fuck up a whole socialist federation like that

that masses would never have approved that, and they didn't in the first elections

This dudes been elected and voted for by the party

the party wasn't everyone

Majority it was

Majority are fools

If majority doesn't elect Gorbachev it elects Trump or Hillary

They have no brain what so ever

@Firefly That is what EVERY commie group does these days.

@Deleted User there are plenty of groups like CPGB-ML, APL, Russian Proriv, Hoxhaist and Maoist organizations that can into organization.

The problem is majority of leftiest are taught to avoid joining them.

They will run around alone without any plan or organization

@Firefly They have no substance at all, and neither can they achieve anything, they are pointless groups that are hopeless.

Citation needed

The only groups that ever achieved anything been similar to them.

You tell me what they have achieved.

You are an idiot and I do not spend my time on idiots.

Ah, so you can't tell me.

the ussr, cuba

china

etc

@kwame All collapsed and capitulated to capitalism.

@kwame It is pointless, this guy is unable to learn.

yeah, but it was something that did a lot

this is a bit like saying the french revolution was meaningless cuz the bourbons came back

@kwame Did a lot? Sure, did they achieve their goals? Hell np.

yeah we don't live in world communism

@Firefly Or is it that you are unable to back your claims, so you resort to emotion and aggression?

it's better that the ussr existed as long as it did than it did not

that's a lot more in my book than nothing

@kwame The USSR was a fucking shitshow up to the very end.

sure

still good

i think you'll never see a revolutionary society you can't say that about

@Deleted User 2nd greatest superpower on Earth is not enough achievement for you.

I mean, lenin himself nearly caused the whole union to collapse, and stalin murdered tens of millions, and killed 2/3 of the politicans and military to get things under control and to prevent total collapse.

stalin murdered tens of millions

@Firefly What 2nd super power? The USSR dosen't exist.

been reading robert conquest i see

@Deleted User It did exist

try not reading cia agitprop

@kwame Hmm?

3rd Reich also does not exist

stalins death toll has been climbing for about 70 years now

1 gorillion, 2 gorillion, 10 gorillion, 100 gorillions

i think timothy snyder got it to 40 million in his latest book