I'm neither a Leninist nor a "Leninist." I was the latter for a few decades. I have come to believe that there is not such thing as "Leninism," for Lenin was not, actually, a theorists, & propounded not Theory of Revolution or of The Party. (Perhaps in the last years of his life he went along with a Theory of the Party developed by others, or rather, mostly, by the demands of daily actuality in the SU in iits first. State & Revolution was mostly a scholarly commentary on Marx & Engels. No real Theory of Revolution or Theory of The Party is articulated in it. Comment on Lenin in the years 1898-1910 that are not grounded in a study of what Lars LIh has to say are nonsense.
Lenin believed Kdautsky to be THE correct interpreter of Marx. When he called Kautsky a Renegade, he meant that Kautsky was a renegade to his (Kautsky's) own theory. He never chaged his mind on this. He continued up to his death to see the pre-1914 Kautsky as THE source of truth about Marx. So when you criticize Lenin you are either criticizing Kautsky or you are criticizing a myth, "Lenin," not Lenin. What you write below might apply to the nominal beliefs of some CPs around the world for a few decades, but you say nothing about Lenin himself or his "theory.,"
^^^^ CB: This is not quite true. Lenin offers a theory of the concrete developments of capitalism in _Imperialism_. He also further develops the theory of dialectical imperialism in _Materalism and Empirio-Criticism_. For example , his definition of materialism as "belief in the existence of objective reality " is a creative contribution , not found in Engels discussion of those fundamental philosophical issues. This was important so that the developments in sub-atomic physics didn't become a basis of discrediting Marxism fundamental theory.
Lenin also , of course, made many contributions to the Marxist theory of actually building socialism (!).
He also developed the Marxist theory of the relationship between the socialist movement in capitalist countries and national liberation movements in the colonial ,non-capitalist nations. These were much of the basis of revolutions in China, Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, et al. and anti-colonialist struggles in other nations.
Kautsky didn't much contribute original theory, so , Lenin gets his Marxism almost entirely from Marx and Engels directly ( That's one of the most important aspects of Lenin's writing: he is a excellent teacher of Marxism) No need for him to get his Marxism from Kautsky. He considered Kautsky a most excellent Marxist until Kautsky supported Germany in WWI and offered a theory of super-imperialism, by which imperialism evolves peacefully into socialism.
^^^^^
But your reference to a "pipe dream" below is itself a sort of pipe dream: it lays claim on your part to the ability to predict the future. It's not predictable. I would guess that stanger things than armed revolution are apt to occur, but I wouldn't even guess at their nature.
Carrol