Marx is a tough one... Marx had an old saying....

"If this Marism, I am not a Marxist."

Marx's beliefs were built out of a dispair in which he couldn't imagine a non communist country even havin  unions as strong as we have now.  So he always thought a large uprising was needed.

Alive today Marx would likely have a totally different set of ideals.

Marx's "End game" communism was really more of a "Libretarian Utopia" then a standard socialist one.  At the end of the day, he saw communism not needing ANY government to get by and people caring for each other out of their new soiciological perspectives.

The only issue is, it had to start with a authrotarian "brain washing" type contol everything group to force people to think that way.  Marx wasn't looking for a new government so much as he was... a new human race one who cared as much for strangers as it did itself.  

Stalin and Lenin after implementing the ideas thought that only with force could communism be upheld... with differing opinions of how much force.

If anything, Marx and Engles being so far a part should be moer surprising to you since they wrote the communist manifesto together.  Though there differences are also pretty unsurprising.

Force is the key word. In order to have socialism - where the economy is redistributed - you require force. Not force of one man's ideal, but an ideal that is propigated by the government. That is why you have a direct correlation between the size of government, its responsibilities, its goals, and the size of socialist redistribution. It requires such to redistribute - through laws, through regulations, ect. Its not quite the will of the people as Marx would like (which is a fine goal, really. I mean, that is what every Christian wants - a world where 100% of the population are giving, self-sacrificial people that help everyone out and are fully willing to sell what they have to help those with less which happened throughout the book of Acts). Of course, in praxis, we find the realities to be different when initiated at a larger scale level. Thus the atrocities of communist states.

You could have a 'pure socialistic state' without requiring government, but it would likely come from the lower-right quadrant - the capitalist/libertarian, whereby the people voluntarily redistribute income based on the needs of society, while the government plays no part in coercion. Of course, that may be as crazy an ideal as Marx :-p

Or to put it another way... the best way to describe Marx's ideals is summed up in one TV Show. Star Trek the Next Generation.

The people in Star Trek the Next Generation basically act how Marx wants people to act. There whole society was kinda based around Marxist ideals, by choice, due to World War 3... because the horribleness of World War 3 convinced people to completely change how they thought and acted. Something basically made and maintained by the will of the people, the Federation and other such things existing only because it's needed.

Engles was more of a "Deep Space Nine" type. Such a perfect society can work, but there will some friction still, and you will need star fleet to keep people in line.


While Lenin thought like this but thought they needed to control people even more and that manipulation through propaganda though lies could help the original goal. (Like say... Section 13 or whatever it is in DS9 that acts as a quasi independent secret police)

While Stalin just outright thought he needed control over everything.  Which to "brainwash" an entire population and counter basically everything we know from both nature AND nurture... you probably would.

Force is the key word. In order to have socialism - where the economy is redistributed - you require force. Not force of one man's ideal, but an ideal that is propigated by the government. That is why you have a direct correlation between the size of government, its responsibilities, its goals, and the size of socialist redistribution. It requires such to redistribute - through laws, through regulations, ect. Its not quite the will of the people as Marx would like (which is a fine goal, really. I mean, that is what every Christian wants - a world where 100% of the population are giving, self-sacrificial people that help everyone out and are fully willing to sell what they have to help those with less which happened throughout the book of Acts). Of course, in praxis, we find the realities to be different when initiated at a larger scale level. Thus the atrocities of communist states.

You could have a 'pure socialistic state' without requiring government, but it would likely come from the lower-right quadrant - the capitalist/libertarian, whereby the people voluntarily redistribute income based on the needs of society, while the government plays no part in coercion. Of course, that may be as crazy an ideal as Marx :-p

Didn't Marx say that religion was the opiate of the masses?

And capitalism is against the "pure socialistic state", as capitalism doresn't imply redistributing income based on "the needs of society". In pure comminism people work together for the betterment of society/the communty etc., sort of like a bee hive, or an ant farm, while capitalists/libertarians from the bottom right would advocate for a 'every man for himself" or "dog eat dog" type of attitude, similar to the selfish philosophy of Ayn Rand (something that's quite far from what Marx wanted).