Nah that's completely not that point I'm making. I know Marx predicted a transitional state.
You said according to Marxist theory, Lenin did nothing wrong. According to Marxist theory, Lenin did lots of things wrong. That is my point and has continued to be.
I'm using taxation as an obvious example of a time Lenin was opposed to something Marx advocated for.
Incidentally, Marx also advocated for Parliamentary democracy.
How did Lenin respond to the Duma?
And I'm telling you why your point is moot. You're really sticking to a nothingburger, and I'm showing you why even that nothingburger is wrong.
Since you're so obsessed with the Communist Manifesto, here's what
it says on the matter:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow19 of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working men of all countries unite!
Literally the closing words.
In the footnotes, we find another citation that best represents Marx's approach to the matter of political power:
We know that one has to take into consideration the institutions, mores, and traditions of the different countries and we do not deny that there are countries like England and America and if I am familiar with your institution, Holland, where labour may attain its ends by peaceful means.”
In other words, electoral takeover when possible, revolution when impossible.
And, by the way the sentence is framed, electoral takeovers such as in America, Britain and the Netherlands appeared to Marx as exceptions to the rule of revolution. Needless to say, America, Britain and the Netherlands had no such events.
History shows that electoral takeovers are essentially impossible, successive analyses have shown them to be undesirable as well. That leaves revolution as the ideal praxis, from the pov of the communist.
I'd like to remind you that, remaining within the argument, the Paris Commune wasn't brought about by electoral games, but by revolution.
Lenin's stance was that electoral games were allowed but for the sake of rallying the class around the party, he never denied their utility in principle, in fact an entire chapter of Left Wing Communism. An Infantile Disorder, addresses the Italian Communist Left's abstentionist positions. Revolution was still the point, but he never excluded participation to bourgeoise parliaments to build up support to them.
I believe this is an acceptable and still orthodox position, in light of what had happened since Marx's demise.
Neither option excludes the other, though one can see which one would be more preferable.