Was Communism meant to be a telos, for Marx, or for Lenin etc.? By that, I mean to ask whether Communism is already contained in anything that creates Communism? My apologies if my jargon is off, I read e.g. that
teleology assumes that the end is already contained in the beginning
I have no idea what the answer is.
I'm interested, because then maybe Lenin's international (Communist) nature means that he should advocate principles which are extant after a Communist world revolution.
It seems to me that e.g. 'red terror' is the wrong word when the international proletariat has already seized its dictatorship and is transitionining toward a "classless" society.
Obviously, Lenin did advoate a "red terror".
There's a fun pamphlet I scanned most of, in which he talks about "compromise" as something one has to do to survive, and how different that is to doing so in order to profit with those who you're compromising with. He seems to be linking that to merely proletarian parties, those that aren't international ("always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole").
I was wondering how that would look with 'telos'?