Conflicts between Leninism and Marxism

Here's a more indepth look at the conflicts, instead of merely the one argument I posted earlier.

1) Conflicts in Theory

In Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder by Lenin, he stated:
"I repeat: the experience of the victorious dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia has clearly shown even to those who are incapable of thinking or have had no occasion to give thought to the matter that absolute centralisation and rigorous discipline of the proletariat are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie."

This is basically saying that the Proletariat is to be obedient to the Party. Their obedience leads to working and producing for the Party, or Revolution. Working for anyone but themselves, according to Marx, is alienation of the worker.

In The Alienation of Labor, by Marx he claims:
"When the product of labor does not belong to the laborer, when a strange, foreign power confronts and dominates him, this can only be possible if it belongs to a human being other than the laborer."

Since Leninism calls for the virtual domination of the proletariat in order for the revolution to succeed, then the Proletariat is being Alienated, according to Marx. Which is what Communism is fighting so hard against.

Although, to be fair to Lenin, this wasn't published until 1932, after Lenin's death. I haven't read all of Marx and I am unsure if this was mentioned numerous times or not. Nevertheless, his mistakes could possibly be forgiven and rectified by future rulers of his newly created country. Except, this isn't what occurred. Stalin, and his supporters, still called for the obedience of the workers as well.

2) Logic

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is when complete power is put into the working class. In the SU, the Vanguard Party had complete power over the government. The Proletariat was allowed to vote and needed to give consent to the Party as to which members could rule them, they weren't allowed to chose the members themselves. The Party nominated candidates and if they were denied by the Proletariat than they would nominate another, and so on.

With that established, the Party itself was not Proletarian as they do not produce anything. They're 100% dependent on the Proletariat for their livelihood, as were the Bourgeois. So, not only are the Proletarians unable to chose their leaders, the leaders they have are not even part of their class. This cannot possibly be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and therefore it is un-Marxist.

3) Quotas

In some cases of the SU, the worker was given quotas to which they were too accomplish in their working activities. This contradicts Marxism to the fullest.

In The Alienation of Labor, by Marx he states:
[I]"His labor is not voluntary, but constrained, forced labor. Therefore, it does not meet a need, but rather it is a means to meet some need alien to it."

The worker is no longer working for him(or her)self and therefore the economic system ceases to be Marxist and is more accurately, Corporatism.

4) Dividing the Proletariat

Scoreboards were put up in factories to show which worker was the most productive and which was not. It creates two groups of workers, the fast and slow. Like other social constructs (such as Racism) it's aimed to divide the Proletariat into separate groups as to avoid any uprising. The quicker worker is happy with the present system because he/she is is recognized for their accomplishments and place themselves above the slower worker, which in turn eliminates equality. While the slower worker is doomed to humiliation every time the scoreboard is updated and they find themselves on the bottom of the list.

This list probably wont end, as there is so much information I have yet to read. Anyone able to add to this list, which deals with Leninism and it's conflicts with Marxism, please do. I will be adding to it as I learn more about the subject as well.

Are Leninists and Maoist really Communists by definition?

Classes are generally defined with their regards to their means of production. The main classes today being:

1) Bourgeois: A person who owns a means of production and hires others to do the work for him/her and produces nothing themselves.
2) Proletariat: A person who produces goods for someone else and receives, in return, wages.
3) Peasant: Someone who owns land and grows their produce through their own work.

There can be several subcategories, but these three classes will suffice for my argument today.

Both Leninists and Maoists believe in a strong Vanguard Party which is run by men (and some women) whom do not belong to the Proletariat class nor the Peasantry. They may have been a Proletariat earlier in their life, but while working for the Party they do not produce any goods.

The Vanguard party claims to be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," yet not one of them belongs to the Proletarian class. How, then, is it possible for them to dictate in the name of the Proletariat? They're closer to being the Bourgeois than they are to being the Proletariat since they manage over the Proletariat and do not produce anything themselves.

Since the Leninists who belong to a Party cease to be Proletarians, they no longer have the right to rule under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Nor do the Maoists party members who are neither Peasants or Proletarians belong ruling their respective government.

It comes down to this:
Everyone should govern under Communism, otherwise it ceases to be.