communism and great man theory are perfectly compatible
history confirms this, the most successful communist movements that advanced history towards a communist future, the USSR and China, both did on the backs of great leaders, no one gives a fuck if great man theory or cults of personality are not materialist in a narrow marxist view, what matters is that it happened, all the theory and pure reasoning in the world is no match for historical fact.
why should I care what european marxists or anarchists have to say about the subject? you didn't do shit, you are potential man, all talk, the blueprint for a communist movement is already out there, will you embrace it or perish like a leftcom dog?
>>2661032>both did on the backs of great leadersyeah who cares about the red army or the few thousand other bolsheviks
Great Man Theory is metaphysics and incompatible with materialism. Just because you're too illiterate to see all the people (plural) behind making a decision happen doesn't mean that logistics doesn't exist.
Communism won't happen until we get a leader that is a permanantly pseudonymous Vtuber. The moment a leader shows their meat face their entire body should be skinned and boiled alive. "Great Men" are the last obstacle keeping socialism from going global.
You should care what Stalin and Mao said about the subject, which is that communism and great man theory are not perfectly compatible.
Just because cult of personality can be weaponized for revolutionary purposes doesnt mean great man theory is correct dummy
Engels talking about Great men theory
>Men make their own history but until now not with collective will according to a collective plan. Not even in a definitely limited given society. Their strivings are at cross purposes with each other, and in all such societies there therefore reigns a necessity, which is supplemented by and manifests itself in the form of contingency. The necessity which here asserts itself through all those contingencies is ultimately, again, economic. Here we must treat of the so-called great man. That a certain particular man and no other emerges at a definite time in a given country is naturally pure chance. But even if we eliminate him, there is always a need for a substitute, and the substitute is found tant bien que mal; in the long run he is sure to be found. That Napoleon – this particular Corsican – should have been the military dictator made necessary by the exhausting wars of the French Republics that was a matter of chance. But that in default of a Napoleon, another would have filled his place, that is established by the fact that whenever a man was necessary he has always been found: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. Marx, to be sure, discovered the materialistic conception of history – but the examples of Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, the whole school of English historians up to 1850 show they were working towards it; and the discovery of the same conception by Morgan serves as proof that the time was ripe for it, and that it had to be discovered.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_25a.htm#n4>>2661036it's the same reasoning that fascists use to "prove" communism is jewish. they ignore all the working people who united to struggle for their class and act like they're all mindless drones. even liberals sometimes believe that chinese people are a "slave race", "bug people" etc.
>>2661476reminds me of how Newtown and Leibniz started developing calculus independently of eachother but around the same time
The whole point of marxism is that historical changes occur through inexorable processes of objective development. It's completely antithetical to the idea that any one individual holds all the keys. Hegel's (perhaps apocryphal) statement when he saw Napoleon ride through Jena as "the world-soul on horse-back" is completely refuted by dialectical materialism. The whole point is that the forces of production themselves contain the seed of development, which determines the overall shape of the political economy. You're a pseud.