We make assumptions about what to expect from our oppressors based on what their material class interests are (profit maximization, capital accumulation, the use of the state as a weapon to protect private property) and factor that into our analysis.
Yeah, you're admirably attempting to model the behavior of a very complex system, but like I said at the beginning, there needs to be a level of humility in doing so. If the model gives you an outlook of the world that essentially saps your will to live, then the focus on that particular model needs to be tempered for your own sake. Otherwise it takes on the character of some Lovecraftian truth, at which point, what good is it? You aren't responsible for the dynamics of the system, and you as an individual cannot change the dynamics of the system. You can work as an individual toward strengthening the power of systems agents (classes in Marxism), but letting the class scale analysis percolate down into how you treat and act to individuals is a recipe for an entirely different kind of alienation altogether.
working class gains or attempts to gain total control of the state and begins the process of changing the main mode of production away from one based on class hierarchy and towards one which is less exploitative and unequal (except to the previous rulers, who can’t be trusted) with the ultimate aim of dissolving the class hierarchy altogether and ending oppression
These metrics aren't any more solid. You can substitute "purported aim" for "ultimate aim" to make it something more tangible, but those aren't the same thing, and it further renders a revolution unclassifiable until some unspecified date in the future when it fizzles out it open capitalism (like the USSR) or achieves abolition of the class hierarchy and the ending of oppression (no where yet). You can state that someplace like China was closer to this ideal, but then we're back to the original problem; we're not in some well metric space where distance is meaningfully defined. The USSR was you can say that the USSR was much closer to this ideal than say the US at a certain point in time, but what good is that now that they're further away? This is a bit like taking the limit as x -> 1E10 and substituting that for x -> infinity.
Yeah, you're admirably attempting to model the behavior of a very complex system, but like I said at the beginning, there needs to be a level of humility in doing so. If the model gives you an outlook of the world that essentially saps your will to live, then the focus on that particular model needs to be tempered for your own sake. Otherwise it takes on the character of some Lovecraftian truth, at which point, what good is it? You aren't responsible for the dynamics of the system, and you as an individual cannot change the dynamics of the system. You can work as an individual toward strengthening the power of systems agents (classes in Marxism), but letting the class scale analysis percolate down into how you treat and act to individuals is a recipe for an entirely different kind of alienation altogether.
These metrics aren't any more solid. You can substitute "purported aim" for "ultimate aim" to make it something more tangible, but those aren't the same thing, and it further renders a revolution unclassifiable until some unspecified date in the future when it fizzles out it open capitalism (like the USSR) or achieves abolition of the class hierarchy and the ending of oppression (no where yet). You can state that someplace like China was closer to this ideal, but then we're back to the original problem; we're not in some well metric space where distance is meaningfully defined. The USSR was you can say that the USSR was much closer to this ideal than say the US at a certain point in time, but what good is that now that they're further away? This is a bit like taking the limit as x -> 1E10 and substituting that for x -> infinity.