This board makes me lol. 'political discussion!' 'No, all discussion of politics is futile!'
Anyway. You've got the Marxism, and then you've got the Marxism-Leninism. Big difference. Marxism-Leninism refers to the style of single-party control that was employed by the USSR and China; it represents the actual 'applied' communism, rather than the theoretical counterpart which the lay person always distinguishes from the former. Of course, Marxism-Leninism makes a very big assumption: This one party must be able to make the right decisions for the people and the state, and must have internal debate-however, once a decision is reached, the party must act as one, and support and execute the policy as one. As we've seen, such a setup was not conducive to actual open debate-some of the problem may have been cultural as well as programmatic.
As for the actual topic at hand, the Marxism itself, there are all manner of theoretical implications covered in the two main documents- the Manifesto (the short, sweeping program), and Capital (the scientific research). Some of the assumptions are that the bourgeois must first rise before they can be reacted against by the proletarians, and that the only thing which makes it POSSIBLE for society to break out of the mold of high-and-low is the recent advancement of technology, making it possible for all to be provided for. This seems to run counter to the 'agrarian utopia' strains of communism in east Asia, although China's manifestation of this was more of a realistic, again 'applied communism' response to Chinese reality. Marxism proper, however, is supposed to require the development of tech so that we can all actually live good once the (necessary) revolution takes place.
A couple of other things-Marxism is not against private property. It's against so-called unearned property or capital, viz. the profit that the owner makes by selling something that you manufactured. It's supposed to be against a situation where enough capital is concentrated in a few hands, that others do not have the option to get their own capital, and are thus forced to sell their labor.
One of the big problems of Marxism-what happens to innovation? American students always pose this one and think themselves really smart. Well, they're right about one thing-the choice and instant response inherent in a capitalist environment are good actual fuel for innovation. But they act as though straight pay can't be supplanted by other desires (promotion, credit, more research money) which are not expressly condemned by Marxism. Of course, I myself would rather be filthy rich than hold a lot of titles, so I won't try to defend this counter-argument too seriously. Anyway the Marxism sure is funky and let's actually talk about it.