What's Wrong With Marx[ism]

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

NOTICE: I've cleaned this post up and made some clarifications in order to avoid misinterperetation.

I find that a large part of the Marxist movement and discussion has too much to do with what some philosopher said once upon a time.

In theoretical terms, the problem I have with Marxism has to do largely with the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". I highly doubt that an authoritarian government will ever lead to a communist society. While electing a conservative [such as George Bush] may fuck up the economy so that the leftist movement grows, electing someone such as Adolph Hitler will destroy the leftist movement, and electing someone like Stalin will only serve to discredit leftism.

Also, I don't like his denunciation of religion, in general, as the "opiate of the masses". I would have preferred it if he denounced organized religion. Religion can contribute some very good things to society. Even organized religion, however, is not evil. Some organized religions, such as Quakerism, believe in the equality of all human beings. They have no ministers, no dogma, no hate.

Furthermore, I don't agree with the idea of a vanguard: I believe that it leads inevitably to a dictatorship. If we want a revolution of egalitarianism then we must make the revolution egalitarian. I know that this isn't exactly Marxist, per se, and that it's actually Marxist-Leninist, but I had to throw that in there.

Lastly, Marxists*, or those claiming to be Marxists have been responsible for the failure of: the Ukrainian Anarchist movement [Early 20th century], the Spanish Anarchist movement**, and the French Anarchist movement [May, 1968]. All of these would have done away with capitalism. But, of course, this wasn't good enough. The Marxists wanted to be in charge. They wanted power. They used the state against the Ukrainians, split the Spanish leftists, and stood with the French capitalists.

*In this paragraph I mean that a large part of the betraying was done by Leninists [In the first example, Lenin was directly responsible for the betrayal], and the ones who were betrayed were Anarchists [including Anarcho-Marxists]. I apologise for the confusion.

**The Marxist betrayal of the anarchists allowed for a Fascist victory. Franco continued to rule Spain until his death.

EDIT: I'd like to change the "hate" to "dislike" or "disagree with". I don't actually hate them.

I'd also like to say that I've had a few extremely bad experiences with Marxists [i.e., if you know them, Jaakko, Ixabert, and co.]. In other words, this does not apply to all Marxists.

[Zingu]

You lack some finer points to that arguement, first of all, if you read in more detail of the Spanish Civil War, the anarchists weren't the only ones betrayed, the Marxist P.O.U.M was also betrayed by the counter-revolutionary Stalinist P.N.S.C (I think I got the abbrevation correctly).
The PNSC was controlled indirectly by the Soviet Union, they went under the slogan "War first, revolution later" but the reality was that the Soviet Union had diplomatic interests with France, it gets a bit complicated, but the Soviet Union actually did not want a revolution to break out in Spain, the anarchist CNT-FAI and Marxist POUM had other ideas.
The "Revolutionary Vanguard" is a Marxist-Leninist thing, I'm no Leninist. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat has various meanings depending to who you ask. The dictatorship in the name of the proletariat is what the Leninists want, for us other Marxists, it means a state and society run in the best interests of the working class, a dictatorship of an entire social class, not one man or a small group of revolutionary "elite".
The 1968 general strike was not entirely the fault of all Marxists, the leadership made the comprimise, you can't label all of us Marxists bad, as you did with the Spanish Civil War, why the hell would Marxists go against the revolution? Its not in our ideology, its quite different.
I think you have a bone to pick with the Leninists, not Marxists in general.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

it means a state and society run in the best interests of the working class, a dictatorship of an entire social class, not one man or a small group of revolutionary "elite".

Yes, but it still necessitates a state. The state will decide things that it THINKS are in the best interest of the working class, and this can often be very different than the reality. Though yes, I think I hate Leninists more than Marxists.

My hatred pyramid of the left: Stalinists/Maoists>Leninists>Marxists

[Zingu]

Depends what makes the state up, I imagine the Marxist state to be like the Paris Commune, where a ultra democractic worker's democracy is in place with much of its power decentrilized among the working class, like worker's militas, also syndaclism is not a bad idea also to keep the state in balance.

Then this could just be a simple matter of your ideology about the state :) .

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate Jujitsu
Also, I don't like his denunciation of religion, in general, as the "opiate of the masses". I would have preferred it if he denounced organized religion. Religion can contribute some very good things to society. Even organized religion, however, is not evil. Some organized religions, such as Quakerism, believe in the equality of all human beings. They have no ministers, no dogma, no hate.

I think this paragraph points clearly to the "reason" for your un-quaker-like "hatred" of Marx and Marxism.

If Marx was right, then your own superstition is just so much garbage...as false as the most esoteric and convoluted Catholic dogma.

The proposition that religion "can contribute some very good things to society" is demonstrably false, of course. The fact that a minuscule number of godsuckers are able to simulate civilized behavior does nothing to ameliorate the barbarism of the overwhelming majority.

My criticism of Marx is that he didn't denounce religion harshly enough!

I try to make up for that. :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

If Marx was right, then your own superstition is just so much garbage...as false as the most esoteric and convoluted Catholic dogma.

Not really. Who says it's superstition anyway? You. No one can know that God does not exist, nor that he does NOT exist. It gives me comfort to think that there is an all-forgiving being that will meet me when I die. It is my choice to believe in that, whether or not it is true or not. Just because I believe in God, however, does not mean that I change my political beliefs or actions.

[Saint-Just]

I find that a large part of the Marxist movement and discussion has too much to do with what some philosopher said once upon a time.

Most philosophies and political ideologies exist largely on the basis of what one or a few philosophers said once upon a time. Therefore you have a problem with philosophies and political ideologies. However, it can be argued that certain movements and political parties as a whole have influenced ideology and so it is not simply discussion of what one individual said. You could also argue that Marxism, in its varying forms, is not only influenced by Marx but by Lenin or Gramsci or however many other Marxist theoriticians one would like to name.

The point is that a number of these people are geniuses and had such brainpower that they were able to scientifically analyse society at a level most people cannot. In fact, Marx is unique in philosophy in that he was the first philosopher to analyse society in a completely scientific manner, divorced from all social preconceptions. Many right and left wing theories today inherit aspects of his thinking.


While electing a conservative [such as George Bush] may fuck up the economy so that the leftist movement grows, electing someone such as Adolph Hitler will destroy the leftist movement, and electing someone like Stalin will only serve to discredit leftism.

I would suggest to you that Marxists are unlikely to endorse an authoritarian government led by George Bush or Adolph Hitler since they are not Marxists and really consider themselves quite far removed from Marxism. Therefore, your mentioning of them is irrelevant. On the point of Joseph Stalin, there is of course a debate.


Some organized religions, such as Quakerism, believe in the equality of all human beings. They have no ministers, no dogma, no hate.

One should first consider why Marxism, in its most common form, prescribes religion. It is not necessarily about dogma or hate. Marxism opposses religion principally because religion perceived society, in many ways, being shaped by metaphysical forces whereas Marxism sees society as nothing more than a material reality. The contradictions between Marxism and religion develop thereof. Undeniably, religion may, in some cases, improve human beings. However, it is ultimately undesirable since it prevents a false view of humanity and one that more often acts to serve oppression.


Lastly, Marxists, or those claiming to be Marxists have been responsible for the failure of: the Ukrainian Anarchist movement [Early 20th century], the Spanish Anarchist movement*, and the French Anarchist movement [May, 1968]. All of these would have done away with capitalism. But, of course, this wasn't good enough. The Marxists wanted to be in charge. They wanted power. They used the state against the Ukrainians, split the Spanish leftists, and stood with the French capitalists.

Interesting view of history. However, besides its factual inaccuracy there are problems with it. Marxist-Leninists, which is who you say you are referring to, view anarchism proceeding capitalism as an impossibility. Therefore, it is not simply a case of Marxists wanting to be in charge but that they view it as necessary that they be in charge, since there is no other way to vanquish capitalism.

As easily as one could say that Marxists were responsible for the failure of various anarchist movements one could say that anarchists were responsible for the failure of the various Marxist movements. Since as the Marixts did not unite with the anarchists the anarchists did not unite with the Marxists. What you are really arguing in the above quoted passage (not in the entirity of your post) is that Marxism-Leninism has diverted attention from Anarchism, something which I doubt any Marxist-Leninist is going to feel sorry for.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate Jujitsu
Not really. Who says it's superstition anyway? You. No one can know that God does not exist, nor that he does NOT exist. It gives me comfort to think that there is an all-forgiving being that will meet me when I die. It is my choice to believe in that, whether or not it is true or not.

Indeed, you may believe the world is secretly ruled by a cabal of pink unicorns from Vega XII for all I care.

But when you emerge from the holy unicorn shrine in your basement and start speaking in public on the subject, you are not "immune" from criticism.

You have the right to believe whatever nonsense appeals to you; but when you advocate it, you can't dismiss criticism with the childish assertion that "I can believe whatever I want" without regard to its truth or falsity.


Just because I believe in God, however, does not mean that I change my political beliefs or actions.

Oh yes it does...as you've illustrated by starting this thread. Your response to Marx is not one of reasonable criticism but rather a frankly expressed hatred because he pissed on your superstition (as well as all other superstitions).

But without a Marxist analysis, what are you left with?

"Pray for communism"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Please check the original post again. I updated it.

[Guest1]

Marxism isn't inherently authoritarian, most of your issues seem to come from misunderstanding (other than your religion blunders).

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate [email protected] 27 2004, 10:01 PM
Please check the original post again. I updated it.
I always assumed you meant Marxist-Leninists. I think everyone else assumed that too.

I am disappointed that you say you don't like Ixabert.

[PRC-UTE]

Counter-Corporate Jujitsu, you need to learn a bit more before you go on a tirade. Anarcho-syndicalists and libertarian communists aim for a dictatorship of the proletariat as well. You might also want to consider that Anarchists have a reputation for being more anti-religious than marxists. It was common in Spain for anarchists to shoot most the priests they captured and to view people as being fifth columnists if they possessed a rosary! :P

Also, the most revolutionary of all anarchists, the Platformist organisation calling itself The Friends of Durruti Group, were very close to being marxist as they called for a junta to kill all counter-revolutionaries. So your criticisms could easily apply to anarchists as well.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate [email protected] 27 2004, 05:01 PM
Please check the original post again. I updated it.
Ok, so?

You don't "really hate" Marx and Marxism...you just "dislike them".

I can't see that makes much of a difference. In fact, I think you "toned down" your originally honest language for the purpose of "social acceptability".

It seems to me to be entirely logical and rational for the followers of any superstition to "hate Marx and Marxism".

Marx is uncompromising on this question -- he says flatly and with complete assurance that there are no gods...both the universe in general and human history in particular is entirely the product of material conditions and forces. He doesn't tolerate any other view.

It's been my observation that when superstitious people express "pro-communist" sentiments, it is evidence of, at best, confusion and indecision. Further, that this confusion and indecision is usually (though not always) resolved in favor of superstition.

To be blunt: one must choose between the "spiritual" and the material view of things -- "ye cannot serve two masters".

Naturally, I hope you'll make the right choice...but experience has taught me not to make any bets on the outcome of this particular gamble.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NovelGentry]

It's been my observation that when superstitious people express "pro-communist" sentiments, it is evidence of, at best, confusion and indecision. Further, that this confusion and indecision is usually (though not always) resolved in favor of superstition.

I would just classify it as Reactionary Morality. They want the perceived morality that communist equality represents without all the stuff that justifies it's existence beyond man being nicer to fellow man.

To me this is a sort of half-assed communism, and I don't think moral arguments will ever get us anywhere.

[American_Trotskyist]

Ok lets look at this. Marx created a science. This science can be applied to all things relating to society, classes. Marx scientifically looked at the world and came up with a solution, economic and political. I don't have enough energy to articulate any more on this at this time. Anarchy is a superficial analysis of society. Blaming the state for capitalism is absurd. You have no scientific proof that it can work, how it will keep the economy going, how it will keep us from barbarism or that anarchy can protect the people from counter-revolution. We maintain living through getting resources, we aren't autotropes.

We get togeather to make our economy more efficient, like all other organisms, and create some authority to make it more efficient. So how can you lay a rail line, grow a crop without some authority? I'm not demanding Stalinism, nor will I go into it because it is irrelevant.

The state is there to moderate class conflicts and to maintain the capitalist or the status quo, they created it for their interests. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a term that is confused. Any ruling class is a dictatorship, the capitalist, the lords and kings, slave masters, ect, ect. The working class will be the ones ruling, that is it.

The idea of a god is foolish. All religion tells us we will eat pie in the sky when we die, to quote Joe Hill. Religion is another institution to make people believe they are better off and it is a tool of the ruling class. Still, having a heaven isn't materialistic, so it is scientific and isn't correct. People are quite passive if they think paradise will come and they lose the revolutionary spirit, they distance themselves from their lives and prolong their enslavement. The Quakers have religious socialism. That requires idealism and humanitarianism, both incorrect and one impossible. To quote your Emma Goldman, “As long as there is a God in Heaven we will be slaves on Earth”. Marxists have a scientific explanation to the world. We want to better the lives of workers, not turn the world into a giant Haight Ashbury commune.

Anarchy is foolish and unscientific, Marxism is neither.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by American_Trotskyist
We want to better the lives of workers, not turn the world into a giant Hatte Asbury commune.

That's Haight and Ashbury...from the intersection of Haight and Ashbury streets in San Francisco.

May I suggest that (1) you use paragraphs in your posts; and (2) that you do Marxism no service by one sentence "proclamations" like the above.

And, I might add, the purpose of overthrowing the capitalist system is not to "better the lives of workers"...it is the abolition of wage-slavery.

We are not "mega-social workers".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[American_Trotskyist]

'68 May in France, that was a communist not an Anarchist movment. The Communist Party did betray the workers because of orders from the Kremlin, but it wasn't affiliated with anarchism at all.

[Djehuti]

"I find that a large part of the Marxist movement and discussion has too much to do with what some philosopher said once upon a time."

Most of Marx' theories are still usefull, hence we use them.
But I do agree that it is strange how there can be so many completly different interpretations, can't people see that my interpretation is correct? ;)
That would solve much and let us continue on into accually using those great theories in reality, that is what they are for.


"In theoretical terms, the problem I have with Marxism has to do largely with the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat"."


Are you sure that you understand what Marx ment by the DotP?
I highly doubt so. He rarely even used that term.
The first time he used is as far as I know was in
The class struggle in France (if its called so in English) from 1848-50, chapter one and chapter three.

He also talk about it in "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" 14 sept 1848.

After that he uses the term in letters to J. Weydemeyer 5 mars 1852.
Engels uses it in Flüchtlingsliteratur 2 from 1874, he also uses it in a text from 1873, but I dont remember the title.

After that Marx uses it when he totaly owned Bakunin in
Konspekt von Bakunins Buch "Staatlichkeit und Anarchie" from 1874-75
and after that in his great work "critique of the gotha program", from 1875 chapter 4.

After that Engels uses it in his letters to C. Schmidt 27 okt. 1890 and in
Zur Kritik des sozialdemokratischen Programmentwurfs, from 1891,
and in his introduction (1891) to Marx' Civil war in France.

That will pretty much sum it up. I suggest that you read this and learn what Marx really ment with the DotP. It is NOT about a dictatorship in the sence we usually use the term.



"Also, I don't like his denunciation of religion, in general, as the "opiate of the masses". I would have preferred it if he denounced organized religion. Religion can contribute some very good things to society. Even organized religion, however, is not evil. Some organized religions, such as Quakerism, believe in the equality of all human beings. They have no ministers, no dogma, no hate."

The correct quote is:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

You might have confused it with Lenins similar quote. Marx quote was not a denunciation of religion in general, but its rather a way to explain what use the religion often have. Like a substitute for accually doing anything useful, people tend to drown their misery in religion. Religion is the "soul of soulless conditions", "the heart of a heartless world" you seek religion (like other seeks alcohol, or drugs) because you see no other way in all this misery. You dream of a bether world after life, instead of fighting for one in this life...

"Some organized religions, such as Quakerism, believe in the equality of all human beings. They have no ministers, no dogma, no hate."

By the way, have you read Friedrich Engels: "Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence"? Its partly about the quakers and other similar groups. Not to long text. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm


Furthermore, I don't agree with the idea of a vanguard: I believe that it leads inevitably to a dictatorship. If we want a revolution of egalitarianism then we must make the revolution egalitarian. I know that this isn't exactly Marxist, per se, and that it's actually Marxist-Leninist, but I had to throw that in there.

I belive in a kind of a Vanguard. Though not of the leninist sort.
But I do believe that it is inevitable that some parts of the working class will reach a higher level of counciousness faster than others, and that these should not stop and wait for something that might never happen if they dont move, but instead go before, like the tip of the spear, like the wedge that break the shield wall of the enemy.
Though they should not be leaders, but simply forrunners, taking initiative.


"Lastly, Marxists*, or those claiming to be Marxists have been responsible for the failure of: the Ukrainian Anarchist movement [Early 20th century], the Spanish Anarchist movement**, and the French Anarchist movement [May, 1968]. All of these would have done away with capitalism. But, of course, this wasn't good enough. The Marxists wanted to be in charge. They wanted power. They used the state against the Ukrainians, split the Spanish leftists, and stood with the French capitalists."


Thats true. The large communist parties have usually taken the side of the bourgeoisie in any real class conflict. Most communists are reactionary anti-communists when something really happens. But remember that there were communists involved in the good side not only in the Spanish civil war, but also in Ukraine, Hungary, East Germany, French, Italy, etc. Anarchists was often in minority in these groups, it was more common that real communists fought the bourgeoisie friendly "communist" parties.

[Conghaileach]

That original post is nonsense. The "Marx" character that he was referring to is little more than a straw man used to attack what Marx was actually about, using a misunderstanding of Marxian terms such as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:54 PM
'68 May in France, that was a communist not an Anarchist movment. The Communist Party did betray the workers because of orders from the Kremlin, but it wasn't affiliated with anarchism at all.
Excuse me? :o

I think you need to reread. 68 began with the students, who decorated the arc with red and black flags pretty quickly. They wanted to join up with the workers, who were being told by their bureaucrats not to get involved, as well as the communist party who opposed it from the very beginning.

The communist party didn't just betray the revolution in its final days, it betrayed it repeatedly and consistantly from the very beginning.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Dec 31 2004, 05:10 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Dec 31 2004, 05:10 PM)
[email protected] 30 2004, 05:54 PM
'68 May in France, that was a communist not an Anarchist movment. The Communist Party did betray the workers because of orders from the Kremlin, but it wasn't affiliated with anarchism at all.
Excuse me? :o

I think you need to reread. 68 began with the students, who decorated the arc with red and black flags pretty quickly. They wanted to join up with the workers, who were being told by their bureaucrats not to get involved, as well as the communist party who opposed it from the very beginning.

The communist party didn't just betray the revolution in its final days, it betrayed it repeatedly and consistantly from the very beginning. [/b]
I have to agree with you. And i also was going to say the same thing - but you said it for me.

[American_Trotskyist]

Well, I believe the Trade Union's general strike was more affliliated with the Communists than the Anarchists. I say this because of the Trade Unions' support of the Communist Party. I know what the communist party did and I'm not a friend of the Communist Party. I know they did it on the orders from Russia, I'm not defending them. But, the General Strike was carried out by the trade unions and they were more communists than anarchists.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by American_Trotskyist
I know they [French Communist Party] did it on the orders from Russia, I'm not defending them.

You certainly have some distinctly odd notions of European "left" history.

The CPF did not need "orders from Russia" to oppose the French General Strike of 1968; they were perfectly capable by that time of opposing revolution "all by themselves".

In fact, just how rotten the "communist movement" had become at that point is illustrated by an often over-looked event.

In the spring of 1968, delegates from Vietnam were in Paris negotiating with U.S. diplomats (fruitlessly, it turned out). So here are these people from Vietnam, fighting a revolution themselves, and a revolutionary situation arises in France.

Their response: "we hope these events will not interfere with the negotiations".

Real international proletarian solidarity! :angry:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[American_Trotskyist]

The Communist Parties of the world were tools used the USSR, or if they were Maoists, and China for foreign policy.The fact that the CP didn't need an order from Russia to suppress the revolution just shows the the CP in France was well trained. Red you seem to hold your self up as a scholar of the Communist movement ,but you seem not to be able to understand the root of the problem, the Thermidorian reaction. As a critic of Marx and Lenin you can't make a decent scientific explaniation for the movement's failure. Except, of course, you go off on one of your meaningless rants about Lenin. Any way back on track. When De Gullie (is that how you spell it?) left France for West Germany to organized a military intervention he said, " We have failed, the COMMUNISTS will be in power within a week," the capitalization is mine and I get that from the introduction to," Lenin and Trotsky: What they really stood for".

[encephalon]

...you seem to hold your self up as a scholar of the Communist movement ,but you seem not to be able to understand the root of the problem, the Thermidorian reaction.

Wasn't the Thermidorian reaction part of the 1848 french revolution? Maybe I'm wrong. Wasn't this about the spanish civil war at some point? I'm not sure I'm making the connection here, at least not in the sense you seem to portray..

maybe I'm confusing threads.'

EDIT: YES, I confused threads. Sorry. Still not sure about the Thermidorian reaction, though.. I may be confusing terms.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by American_Trotskyist+--> (American_Trotskyist)As a critic of Marx and Lenin you can't make a decent scientific explanation for the movement's failure.[/b]

I don't need to...as it happens, Marx and Engels themselves anticipated the Leninist debacle long before it happened.


Marx
Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, “maintaining injustice in property relations”, it is not creating it. The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate.

The italics are Marx's; the bold is my emphasis.

Marx and Engels "On Leninism" (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083760715&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Get the picture? Given the material conditions in Russia, Thermidor was inevitable.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[American_Trotskyist]

Yes the material conditions weren't created in Russia yet. The whole point of the revolution was to spark the revolution in the West and to get aid from them. Russia gave the resources and the West gave the industry. Communism in one country is impossible, especially in Russia. So, it is impossible for communism, or socialism for that matter, to exist in one country because no country can fuel the resources to its industry alone. So because they couldn't develop the conditions on their own they need socialist revolution in the west. Otherwise it turns into Proletarian Bonapartism. So there needs to be an international revolution. Lenin said countless times that Russia needed to have socialist revolution in the West or it was doomed, it would come under a period of reaction. So yes Lenin followed the words of Marx and Engels.