If communism has a leader, is it still communism?

[AmaniPaz]

Debatable.

 

[FlareBlitz]

Comunism is when u have ur whole life ruled like north korea they have a dictator which is a leader. They are know as comunist.

The dictator rules. He controls everything that goes on.

 

[AmaniPaz]

I don't think you guys understand what I mean. The whole basis of Communism is equality. Having a leader just destroys all of that.

 

[Shinobi Train]

I don't think you guys understand what I mean. The whole basis of Communism is equality. Having a leader just destroys all of that.

Equality among the citizens, not for the leaders. It's a control mechanism.

 

[GeniusStyleUser]

just becuase you have a leader doesnt mean that leader is any more equal than the parts in which it consists of.

 

[Sasunarufan13]

It's still communism, yes. The dictator is the one who controls everything; 'equality' only is between the citizens. Communism without a 'leader' can't exist, because someone has to control everything.

 

[Pesh]

Comunism is when u have ur whole life ruled like north korea they have a dictator which is a leader. They are know as comunist.

The dictator rules. He controls everything that goes on.

Yes? Still same ideology , and besides they have always had a leader so it doesn't really matter.

First off, get your facts straight before you talk.


Well, if I remember correctly Marx's idea of the communist revolution consisted of winning a democratic election, proletarian dictatorship( which is not a one man totalitarianism) and then comes Communism, which has no leaders whatsoever. So far there haven't really been a communist state, only socialist ones. So to answer the question, it is not.

 

[Shinobi Train]

First off, get your facts straight before you talk.


Well, if I remember correctly Marx's idea of the communist revolution consisted of winning a democratic election, proletarian dictatorship( which is not a one man totalitarianism) and then comes Communism, which has no leaders whatsoever. So far there haven't really been a communist state, only socialist ones. So to answer the question, it is not.

Wow, that would fail even harder. :| I'd give a country like that a week, month tops, before they figure out it was a really bad idea. xd

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[AP2k]

It becomes more extreme nationalism and facsism with a leader, even though thats what communism was made to fight. No one from America will be able to talk about this since our school system has painted communism as evil for 90 years.

 

[AP2k]

First off, get your facts straight before you talk.


Well, if I remember correctly Marx's idea of the communist revolution consisted of winning a democratic election, proletarian dictatorship( which is not a one man totalitarianism) and then comes Communism, which has no leaders whatsoever. So far there haven't really been a communist state, only socialist ones. So to answer the question, it is not.

Marx and Engles believed the only way to create a communists state was through a violent uprising of peasants against the bourgeoisie. Word for word from the communist manifesto

 

[Grim]

Communism and anarchi is two different things, everywhere is leader

 

[ZK]

Wow, that would fail even harder. :| I'd give a country like that a week, month tops, before they figure out it was a really bad idea. xd

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

LOL!
I love how I find you in every thread, every time spouting something terribly narrow-minded.

Communism has no leaders in the sense that no individual has any authority over other individuals. What you'll know as a 'president' in the United States would be a mere adminsitrative position in a Communist society, and it certainly wouldn't have any benefits other than those everyone else have.
Leaders can be removed and replaced immediately when the people wills it.
Resources are distributed equally.
I like how everyone says that 'Communism can't work because people don't work an equal amount of time'. Well, with the ability to give EVERYONE a job, it would be easy to split, for example, a CEO position in two, sharing it between two people.
Responsibility is on the people's shoulders; not the individual's.

Communism is ****ing awesome.

 

[Shinobi Train]

LOL!
I love how I find you in every thread, every time spouting something terribly narrow-minded.

Communism has no leaders in the sense that no individual has any authority over other individuals. What you'll know as a 'president' in the United States would be a mere adminsitrative position in a Communist society, and it certainly wouldn't have any benefits other than those everyone else have.
Leaders can be removed and replaced immediately when the people wills it.
Resources are distributed equally.
I like how everyone says that 'Communism can't work because people don't work an equal amount of time'. Well, with the ability to give EVERYONE a job, it would be easy to split, for example, a CEO position in two, sharing it between two people.
Responsibility is on the people's shoulders; not the individual's.

Communism is ****ing awesome.

Wow, dude, I like how you don't understand how business works. xd

 

[Ldude]

First off, get your facts straight before you talk.


Well, if I remember correctly Marx's idea of the communist revolution consisted of winning a democratic election, proletarian dictatorship( which is not a one man totalitarianism) and then comes Communism, which has no leaders whatsoever. So far there haven't really been a communist state, only socialist ones. So to answer the question, it is not.

That's only Marxism. Communism has evolved since then. North Korea and China are known to have communist governments. Get your facts straight.

 

[Ldude]

LOL!
I love how I find you in every thread, every time spouting something terribly narrow-minded.

Communism has no leaders in the sense that no individual has any authority over other individuals. What you'll know as a 'president' in the United States would be a mere adminsitrative position in a Communist society, and it certainly wouldn't have any benefits other than those everyone else have.
Leaders can be removed and replaced immediately when the people wills it.
Resources are distributed equally.
I like how everyone says that 'Communism can't work because people don't work an equal amount of time'. Well, with the ability to give EVERYONE a job, it would be easy to split, for example, a CEO position in two, sharing it between two people.
Responsibility is on the people's shoulders; not the individual's.

Communism is ****ing awesome.

It does have complications though. Everyone receives the same amount of food or payment no matter how hard they work. People then start to slack off because they know they will still receive payment. Society doesn't function when people don't do their jobs well. That is why it fails. So far communism has not worked out. The closest working example in my opinion are the kibbutzim in Israel (no, that is not communism.) But anyway, individuals who live on kibbutzim don't get payed in money. The kibbutz as a community does, however, have money to trade with outside places. The individuals have managed to make the kibbutz system work. Look it up if you want to learn more about kibbutzim.