It's not a coincidence that actual Communist revolutions only took place in nations that were not yet industrialized. Russia and China are the prime examples.
Not really. All of Europe had the "socialist" revolution. It just wasn't bloody. (Or rather, wasn't *as* bloody). Take Sweden for example. The social democrats were considered and treated like communists for the first few decades of its existence (jailings, beatings, being fired from your job for membership etc.) but by diligent work for general suffrage (males only of course), even though the right were in strong opposition, when everybody got the vote, they came into power and held on to it almost uncontested for 50 years.
During their tenure the Swedish transformation was nothing short of revolutionary when it came to workers rights (i.e. anybody's rights but the landed gentry). Much the same happened through out Europe, to a smaller or greater extent. (The anglo saxons being a notable example at the smaller end. They still haven't gotten rid of the class society, whereas it died in almost all of the rest of Europe).
So plenty of industrialised societies in Europe had a "socialist" transformation, based on the rights of the general public, and stemming from that. Indeed your argument plays almost hand in hand with Marx's own, namely that the socialist revolution cannot succeed in a non industrialised society. With Russia/China etc. being prime examples of horrible failure...