What is the difference between marxism and leninism...??

@irishmolly72 No but Marx did say that Capitalism would eventually fall due to its innherent contradictions especially its mistreatment of the working class who are the ones to carry every system. That doesn't mean though that the Proletariat should let themselves get dragged down. A revolution would be the natural process since to him history is a "history of class war".

Lenins biggest mistake was to build Communism in a feudal country which goes against Marx. Rapid industrialization is what caused most deaths in China and the Soviet Union.

@Gloomy Russian revolutionary Vera Zasulich sent a letter to Marx near the end of his life in which she raised the question as to whether or not the commune in Russia could be “capable of developing along the socialist path,” or if Russians needed to wait until capitalism was fully developed in Russia as it was in Western Europe before there could be a socialist revolution.
Here's Marx' answer:
"The analysis in Capital therefore provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune. But the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development."
The following year, Engels wrote a preface of the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto which Marx signed. The preface stated that “[i]if the Russian revolution is the signal for a workers’ revolution in the West, and if these complement one another, then the present-day system of communal ownership in Russia can serve as the starting-point for a communist development[/i].”

@helenS Thanks for pointing that out to me.
He advocates for a version of socialism in Russia based on the "archaic" commune that can take advantage of the developments in technology and social organization created by advanced capitalism. It is not necessary for Russian society to go throug the several-centuries long process of agricultural and technological modernization that England underwent cause Russia could simply adopt the modern technologies that were available at the time.

[quote]the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.[/quote]

This is important since these conditions were not met due to the civil war and Russia still fighting in world war 1 after the Revolution. Without the Bolsheviks filling the power vaccuum and taking leadership things may have gotten worse at this point.
The Red Army was born out of the Revolution and the Civil War and was not intended to be an enforcment tool for the state.

@irishmolly72 Well you got one thing right. You are no expert.

@Gloomy The rapid industrialization point is unbelievably important.

The deaths in Europe and the US from industrialization were massive, but they were spread out over an entire century. Stalin and Mao crammed that shit into a decade. The "death toll of communism" was always a red herring because it magically erases the mass deaths and genocides at the hands of capitalism we're taught to either ignore, or chalk up to other causes.

@helenS Marx's quote about the Russian commune doing fine if left alone is interesting considering that the state of being in constant assault from all sides has been the case for almost every worthwhile leftist movement in modern history.

@CountScrofula Also in North American we basically imported most of the people we killed to industrialize from slaves to the Chinese immigrants killed building the railroads.


Also most of the people who make claims about communism killing more people cite a single source "The black book of communism" which even people who contributed to the book have since disavowed and accused the editor of manufacturing numbers out of thin air.

@Gloomy @CountScrofula Actually, Dr. Marx encountered difficulties in replying to Zasulich's question. He wrote three (!) drafts (which are available today for reading), and the last one (the one he sent to Zasulich) was very short. I think the main point is that he referred to "special studies" he had made, and [u]not[/u] to his book "The Capital". He emphasized the book is irrelevant when it's about Russia.
Essentially I think it's safe to say that Marx was [u]not[/u] a Leninist avant la lettre.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I have a little Chinaman doll. You pull its string and it sings[b] "I've been working on the railroad".
[/b]
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

@Slade crawl back into your sludge pool slade. You are stinking up my post.

@helenS Yeah absolutely. What I'm saying is his throwaway observation, even that early on, is something that's been repeated throughout left history. You step out against the economic status quo the knives are out from all sides.

And yeah Marx's analysis of capitalism is unbelievably important, he just made the same foolish mistake a million others have. He tried to predict the future. I actually think it's kind of hilarious how the Bolsheviks really wanted to overthrow capitalism, but had a feudal state so were stuck hoping for a liberal revolution first so they could then progress to communism. I guess that sorta happened.

@Carla Cope Harder! 🤣