why we focus more on the leaders than the actual people of revolutions?

[The Red Next Door]

I was just thinking here and i think that when it comes to the left, people focus on the leaders instead of the actual people. Revolutions are not possible without the help of the people; i just feel like we be focusing too much on the leaders. why do we have to match are views with Lenin or Marx? I feel sometimes some revolutionary leaders glorify themselves a little too much. I really don't line my views with no one and how can you say i am not a communist because i don't line my views with Lenin. To me it all about the theory, not the leaders. Marx matter because he created it, but the others like mao and you know which russian with the stupid hair doo. I think revolutions should focus on the people instead of the leaders because the leader just inspire the people stand up but most of the work is done by the common people. Which is the sick story of the soviet union, NK, and Cuba. Those leaders act like that they did all by themselves and the citizens was not a part of it at all. We should focus on the oppress class who rose up to fight instead of the leaders.

[CommunistWaffle]

Because victors write history and the human mind just works like that. We associate things with other related things.

[Invincible Summer]

I was just thinking here and i think that when it comes to the left, people focus on the leaders instead of the actual people. Revolutions are not possible without the help of the people; i just feel like we be focusing too much on the leaders. why do we have to match are views with Lenin or Marx? I feel sometimes some revolutionary leaders glorify themselves a little too much. I really don't line my views with no one and how can you say i am not a communist because i don't line my views with Lenin. To me it all about the theory, not the leaders. Marx matter because he created it, but the others like mao and you know which russian with the stupid hair doo. I think revolutions should focus on the people instead of the leaders because the leader just inspire the people stand up but most of the work is done by the common people. Which is the sick story of the soviet union, NK, and Cuba. Those leaders act like that they did all by themselves and the citizens was not a part of it at all. We should focus on the oppress class who rose up to fight instead of the leaders.

Although you have a good point, I can't recall (at this moment) any Communist who upholds certain leaders and claims that the masses did nothing. And AFAIK, neither Lenin nor Castro claimed that they single-handedly brought socialism to their respective nations

[Floyce White]

Lower-class people are--and always were --the foot soldiers on all sides of all struggles. The focus on "leaders" and "leadership" is to avoid the obvious truth: that the division of politics into "leaders" and "followers" mirrors the division of broader society into employers and employees.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The focus on certain individuals is (or at least should be) simply shorthand (although obviously there was a lot of fertilization of icons in the USSR and groups following in that tradition).

I identify myself as a Trotskyist not because he was right all the time or a great guy but as a shorthand for someone in the Bolshevik tradition who rejects "socialism in one country" and the policies represented by Stalin.

As for Marxism in general - this is the ideology that focuses on social groups rather than individuals more than most others. Marxism explicitly rejects the "great man" view of history in favor of a materialist view of history where change comes from collective action and class struggle. A Worker's revolution is the self-emancipation of the working class, not the result of the actions of some great individuals.

When I am organizing, my goal is to make everyone I'm working with their own leader - I want to see a movement where everyone is a leader and thinking about what the best way forward is. Also, the involvement of "the masses" is not optional in my view, workers need to take over the means of production.