why is it that, according to Marx, a peaceful revolution can be attained in a place like the United States or England but 'in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force?' Did he answer that question himself?
Because the way the system is set up allows it to be hijacked through peaceful means, where political violence by non-government and citizens entities only serve to further the legitimization of the use of force by the state.
In any struggle for political control, all efforts should be focused on the area of society which creates the most effect, the most gain for the least amount of trouble. Why people constantly think that blowing up x amount of buildings, or x in amount and intensity of violence equates in change is beyond me, when any one who read a counter insurgency manual would know there is more to it then that. A lot what makes any type of military campaign (revolutionary or not) work is the non-violent and psychological methods employed along side with use of force. Warfare is pretty much like election campaigning, except with guns.
In the US, the capitalists have already figured how to do this and exploit these systematic weaknesses for their own benefit, at the expense of everyone else. If you can figure how they do it, then it should be easy how to come up with a method for others wanting to fulfill an agenda based on ending exploitation. It would also be easy after figuring out these weaknesses to create an organization suited to the task and based on one's ideals without compromising either.
I have only recently began to get into Marxism, so please help me with any inaccuracies I may have. A communistic society is a society where everyone shares everything based on need correct, thus ending the class differences? Would a group who recently immigrated to the US who operates according to that basic assumption I stated be considered Marxist or communistic to a degree, if only on a micro scale?