No, not at all. You even lend credence later when you said he admitted regret emigrating to the US. Einstine is not noted as a great judge of character. Just of physics. It makes no claim about my own skills. Just the dishonesty of your assertions. You’re making an appeal to his authority in physics to justify milataristic dictatorship. You may as well appeal to what ever authority Kim Kardashiuan has.

Can I ask how many of Einstein’s books, letters and other associated work you have actually read?

You’re making claims about him but, much like Marx and Lenin, I suspect your actual knowledge about him does not extend beyond extremely basic pop trivia. Despite this, you feel capable of making sweeping claims about the judgement of one of the most remarkable and important people in modern history?

No, but there’s always more interpritations to most everything that Marx says than the base milataristic Leninist viewpoint. “Terror” is a vagurey that could mean… well almost anything that the bourgeois wouldn’t like. Such as the workers uniting and simply asserting their numbersand solidarity to confront and expell those in power that stood against them.

This is not correct. Terror is not being used in the form of “things people don’t like”. Terror is being used in its literal military meaning by Marx here. Marx wanted a violent revolution and recognised that the post-revolutionary state would require the infliction of a terror upon its opposition in order to suppress forces opposed to the revolutionary government and consolidate its power in the face of complete and total global capitalist opposition. A terror means to inflict upon a portion of the population fear as a means of suppressing their political goals.

Marx was an admirer of the French Jacobins and wrote on what is known as the Reign of Terror that they employed during and after the French revolution, while seeing their revolution as an aborted proletarian revolution that failed to achieve the Enlightenment goals that created it. Marx saw liberals as those who had simply replaced the old hierarchy with a new one rather than otherthrown it entirely and installed the people, he saw this as a betrayal of the ideas of the Enlightenment and he saw socialists as the new carriers of those ideas after liberals had firmly dropped them. He contrasted his ideas with the methods of the French revolution frequently:

“Does that mean that in the future the street fight will play no further role? Certainly not. It only means that the conditions since 1848 have become far more unfavorable for civil fights, far more favorable for the military. A future street fight can therefore only be victorious when this unfavorable situation is compensated by other factors. Accordingly, it will occur more seldom in the beginning of a great revolution than in its further progress, and will have to be undertaken with greater forces. These, however, may then well prefer, as in the whole Great French Revolution on September 4 and October 31, 1870, in Paris, the open attack to the passive barricade tactics.” - Marx

Marx also spoke of a gradual transition to communism. Over a long period. More of an Evolution than a strictly violent Revolution. Though not shying away from force where neccessary. The problem is with humans and doubly so with the Leninist variety. We lack patience or dedication. And it’s just so much faster/easier to violently force your views onto others than to talk to them and convince them of your views.

Yes but this transition is during socialism, post-revolution, post-terror and clear consolidation of power in the new state. Once the state has resoundingly beaten its enemies and acquired greater resources it then goes into more sophisticated means of preventing counter-revolution. Terror doesn’t last forever.

This is a key point of my divergence with Leninist’s. Forcing themselves not just on to the bourgeois, but the rest of the proletariot. Rather than trying to work with and convince them.

This is not a divergence with Lenin, this is a divergence with Marx himself. It sounds like you are a pacifist. Marx categorically was not:

“Collisions proceeding from the very conditions of bourgeois society must be fought out to the end, they cannot be conjured out of existence” - Marx

He could have meant a lot of things. There’s more than one type of “force” as well as magnatude of such force.

Good job he was explicitly clear what type of force he wanted to use then.

“the governments are opposed to us : we must answer them with all the means that are at our disposal … We must declare to the governments : we will proceed against you where it is possible and by force of arms when it may be necessary” - Marx

Which Leninists always take militarily and litterally.

Because that is precisely what he said, many many many times.

I’m not some capitalist liberal who think’s ML nations were pure hellscapes. But I will not shy away from vocally calling out their inherant failings. Of which there are many. Ironically, something I wouldn’t be allowed to do in most ML nations. Because of the way they rely on force and the new militairy bourgeois they subject themselves to.

There are definitely failings to learn from I certainly agree. The ones that are gone wouldn’t be gone had they not failed in one way or another. There is a peculiar past-tense being used in this statement though, “were”, said as if there are none in existence today, this is factually incorrect.