This statement is a distortion.
Leaderless, spontaneous socialism is NOT AT ALL a characteristic of Marxism.
[U]nity must be rejected in a decisive manner. Instead of letting themselves out to the bourgeois Democrats to serve them as a sort of applauding choir, the workers (and above all the League) must work for the establishment of an independent secret and open organization of the worker's party side by side with the official Democrats, and make every municipality a center and a nucleus of workers' socities, in which the posistion and interests of the proletariat should be discussed independently of bourgeois influences.(3)
: Thus Marx the strategist distinguished himself from the sectarian Marxists of today.
Well...maybe in your revisionist literature, Sam...
: So what does any of this have to do with communes? My own inclination is to believe that the coming revolution may perhaps take the form of a communal movement, a movement to decentralize economic life a la the Green Party, simply because the technological requirements of the future will require a degree of energy conservation and local energy production that capitalist society has been unwilling to consider.
But communes---due to their historically small membership---are the form of opposition LEAST LIKELY to have ANY impact on the polluting prectices of transnational corporations!
Your 'commune movement' relies on the same 'natural' spontaneousness as the proletarian movement you (erroneously) attribute to Marxism---and THEN dismiss.
_______________
Notes:
1. Engels, The Peasant War In Germany [1874], International 1926, p. 29.
2. Braunthal, History of the International vol. 2, p. 178.
3. Marx, 'First Address of the Central Committee of the Communist League to its Members in Germany' [1850], appendix to Engels, op. cit., p. 140, emphasis added.