Ask OP about that, cause I use their phrasing (which is a part of why I wrote what I wrote in the first place, it is dangerously naive to narrow the situations in real existing capitalism down to easy two sides, when in fact the working class can face many specific adversaries - who will not in turn threaten capitalism itself, only the working class when it is the subject actor will + possible climate change).
In Marxist terms we got three answers, we got the answer from the German Ideology
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
We got Engel's who talks very specifically about the emergent proletariat as working class, which is true and focuses on them as one of the two significant in class struggle, but the proletariat as working class isn't the whole working class in itself. Even though over time the term became to mean the whole class.
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
In regards to your claim "it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism", this is close to Marxist doctrine, but doesn't meet it and is utopian as statement in itself.
not the working class can achieve communism, but the working class as subject in class struggle can achieve communism (this means there is more to it, it has to become a working class for itself -> which means movements are necessary before we get to it)
if it were self evident we wouldn't have to have scientific analysis to get to it and wouldn't have so many revisionists in the sense of German social democrats of 1870 and people who forget the warnings about the reaction Marx's highlighted i.e. in the Brumaire 18ths, in the manifest and also volume 1. Only with tools and the right conscious become your claim "self evident". From the basics of Marxism and historical materialism it becomes self evident, however this is not the case for people with wrong subjective conscious.
We also got a good handy phrase to see who is analyzed by Marx directly (though we can expand that a bit, like Engels did - showing that the people doing reproductive work at home are bound into the productive process):
For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free labourer free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power.
This is handily used by many vulgar and beginning Marxist's to highlight how we all are part of the working class (and it is indeed a handy tool), however naively and wrong would people be, that say that this means there is only the working class (and the others, which would be the capitalists).
The factual and current class structure of societies has to be looked at not from a theoretical point of view, but from the integration of theory and empiricism - so science.
The class structure of England in 1830 was not that of England in the 1870, the class structure of England in 1970 is another beast, too. I.e. the number of workers in the sense of factory workers, changed dramatically (which means we have to look at the global capitalism now, instead of small spheres to understand the productive or exchange sphere). However the basic analysis of Marx still holds.
However the amount of classes, as well as the specific stratification of classes changed (the transnational capitalist class got more influence as example). The main contradiction between capitalists and the working class did not change much (though the class interests of quite a few of the labour aristocracy in England are bound for a few years to come, more with the interests of the national capitalists - who themselves try to keep up a bit of crumbling empire for their own gain - this means that the objective interests of the international working class has to be highlighted before the privileges of the labour aristocracy in the core vanish).
Those points aren't an answer how specific a working class movement would look like, cause the most easy thing to understand how Marx would judge working class movements is to read his articles - not books (those you should've read to have the theoretical framework) - about situations and conflicts complemented by his Critique of the Gothaer program.
There is no need to pull a Lenin and write a narrowed down version of Marx points into a book for a chapo post.
Lets quickly talk about two more things
it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
Is very true basic Marxism and Capital. However the sentence (which is implied) naturally has to sound: Within the historically grown capitalist systems we have the class contradictions between the capitalist class and the working class, which are dominant, and within that system only the working class has an objective class interest that is the abolishing of private property.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad
It is clear that you are not an ally of the real existing working class movement (interfering from your posts here) which will abolish the current system. Though you might become one, if you listen more to others and start collective action and soundboard your praxis with people who are actually various intersecting ways exploited by the system.
Maybe… just maybe… because China is a capitalist country ruled by capitalists?
Yeah buddy, it might be that your holy grail and conception of communism might be a bit idealist in nature.
The fact that after writing all this crap you think China is not capitalist tells me all I need to know.
You really don't succeed at reading. That I quote you who claims China is capitalist and say your view is reductive is not me saying China is communist or not communist or capitalist or not capitalist. You act as if there is no difference between China (2021), the Soviet Union (1924) and the USA (2021).
China is capitalist. Thats a fact. Youre so terrible at trying to sound nuanced or subtle. I can easily tell when someone is actually knnowledgable and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through
Ask OP about that, cause I use their phrasing (which is a part of why I wrote what I wrote in the first place, it is dangerously naive to narrow the situations in real existing capitalism down to easy two sides, when in fact the working class can face many specific adversaries - who will not in turn threaten capitalism itself, only the working class when it is the subject actor will + possible climate change).
In Marxist terms we got three answers, we got the answer from the German Ideology
We got Engel's who talks very specifically about the emergent proletariat as working class, which is true and focuses on them as one of the two significant in class struggle, but the proletariat as working class isn't the whole working class in itself. Even though over time the term became to mean the whole class.
In regards to your claim "it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism", this is close to Marxist doctrine, but doesn't meet it and is utopian as statement in itself.
not the working class can achieve communism, but the working class as subject in class struggle can achieve communism (this means there is more to it, it has to become a working class for itself -> which means movements are necessary before we get to it)
if it were self evident we wouldn't have to have scientific analysis to get to it and wouldn't have so many revisionists in the sense of German social democrats of 1870 and people who forget the warnings about the reaction Marx's highlighted i.e. in the Brumaire 18ths, in the manifest and also volume 1. Only with tools and the right conscious become your claim "self evident". From the basics of Marxism and historical materialism it becomes self evident, however this is not the case for people with wrong subjective conscious.
We also got a good handy phrase to see who is analyzed by Marx directly (though we can expand that a bit, like Engels did - showing that the people doing reproductive work at home are bound into the productive process):
This is handily used by many vulgar and beginning Marxist's to highlight how we all are part of the working class (and it is indeed a handy tool), however naively and wrong would people be, that say that this means there is only the working class (and the others, which would be the capitalists).
The factual and current class structure of societies has to be looked at not from a theoretical point of view, but from the integration of theory and empiricism - so science.
The class structure of England in 1830 was not that of England in the 1870, the class structure of England in 1970 is another beast, too. I.e. the number of workers in the sense of factory workers, changed dramatically (which means we have to look at the global capitalism now, instead of small spheres to understand the productive or exchange sphere). However the basic analysis of Marx still holds.
However the amount of classes, as well as the specific stratification of classes changed (the transnational capitalist class got more influence as example). The main contradiction between capitalists and the working class did not change much (though the class interests of quite a few of the labour aristocracy in England are bound for a few years to come, more with the interests of the national capitalists - who themselves try to keep up a bit of crumbling empire for their own gain - this means that the objective interests of the international working class has to be highlighted before the privileges of the labour aristocracy in the core vanish).
Those points aren't an answer how specific a working class movement would look like, cause the most easy thing to understand how Marx would judge working class movements is to read his articles - not books (those you should've read to have the theoretical framework) - about situations and conflicts complemented by his Critique of the Gothaer program.
There is no need to pull a Lenin and write a narrowed down version of Marx points into a book for a chapo post.
Lets quickly talk about two more things
Is very true basic Marxism and Capital. However the sentence (which is implied) naturally has to sound: Within the historically grown capitalist systems we have the class contradictions between the capitalist class and the working class, which are dominant, and within that system only the working class has an objective class interest that is the abolishing of private property.
It is clear that you are not an ally of the real existing working class movement (interfering from your posts here) which will abolish the current system. Though you might become one, if you listen more to others and start collective action and soundboard your praxis with people who are actually various intersecting ways exploited by the system.
Yeah buddy, it might be that your holy grail and conception of communism might be a bit idealist in nature.
Yeah, you really are not a communist in any sense, except a vulgar one.
The fact that after writing all this crap you think China is not capitalist tells me all I need to know.
EDIT : I feel bad for you. You need to log off, not write entire essays to random people on the internet.
You really don't succeed at reading. That I quote you who claims China is capitalist and say your view is reductive is not me saying China is communist or not communist or capitalist or not capitalist. You act as if there is no difference between China (2021), the Soviet Union (1924) and the USA (2021).
China is capitalist. Thats a fact. Youre so terrible at trying to sound nuanced or subtle. I can easily tell when someone is actually knnowledgable and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through
Was Marx a member of the working class?
Edit about your edit; "and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through" you are learning, that was rightly thrown at you not a week ago
No, he was a member of the petit bourgeoisie. Why is that relevant here?
What criteria make him a member of the petit bourgeoisie (till 1843, from 1843 till 1849, after)?
Make your point debatelord.