The Global Slum and the Mall Economy: New Challenges Communist Revolutionaries Face Today

Prairie Fire has authored a very good article on the sorts of new challenges that we face today in terms of how to radically change the world for the better. It is good enough (and short enough) to be worth re-posting in its entirety here:

Prairie Fire: New world, new challenges, new science

Posted on April 24, 2011 by MSH

New world, new challenges, new science
by Prairie Fire
(llco.org)

In 1965, as wars of liberation waged around the world, Lin Biao wrote of the great divide between the global city versus the global countryside, the rich countries versus the poor countries, the First World versus the Third World. This continues to be the principal contradiction today. Lin Biao saw the world revolution through the lenses of people’s war. Just as Mao’s people’s war in China advanced from the countryside to surround, then conquer, China’s cities, so too would global people’s war advance from the global countryside to surround, then conquer, the global city. This basic outlook continues to be correct today, as it was in 1965. However, the world has changed greatly in the last half century. Our political economy, our concepts of underdevelopment, class, revolutionary agency, and practice must all be updated to meet these challenges. Here are some basic points that need to be understood by revolutionaries:

1. Underdevelopment has taken new forms. Imperialism has created a lopsided world. Development has been, and continues to be, uneven from country to country. In the past, those countries that were considered to be developed were industrialized and also had diversified economies. Some of these developed countries were imperialist ones, others were socialist. The socialist ones built themselves up and sustained themselves through their own labor and resources. By contrast, the imperialist countries became developed on the backs of their colonies and neo-colonies. The imperialist countries built up their economies at the expense of others. For example, the industrial-revolution economies of Western Europe and North America were made possible and given a boost by the value created by slavery and value transfers from colonies. Cheap labor and raw materials, plunder of land through genocide, and the opening of new colonial markets aided in the modernization of the West. This process continues in various forms today. However, underdevelopment today differs in some respects than past underdevelopment. In the past, underdevelopment was often linked to both lack of industrialization and lack of diversification of production. In the past, an underdeveloped economy was usually a poor economy that was mainly geared toward production of one or two cash crops or mineral or other resource extraction. These products would then be processed, or refined, or enter into a larger production process in the imperialist developed countries. In other words, in the past, industrialization and diversification was almost always associated with development. And, lack of industrialization and lack of diversification was almost always associated with underdevelopment. Even though this old pattern continues in some places, in other places new patterns are emerging. Today, the wealthy, imperialist countries are no longer industrialized as they once were. Today, in many parts of the First World, fewer and fewer people are employed in factories. Rather, more and more people are employed in distribution, commerce, management, and the public sector. In many parts of the First World, populations consume more and more, but produces less and less. This is the rise of the mall economy of the First World. At the same time, factories are moved to the Third World. Many Third World economies have become industrialized and diversified, yet the primary beneficiaries of this are not Third World populations, but the imperial populations of the First World. In other words, even though the Third World countries are producing, the value is mainly directed outward to the First World. The surplus is not directed into the Third World economies in a way that benefits the population, aids self-determination, or produces truly national capital. Instead, the benefactors are the imperialists and the imperial populations. Thus healthy development is not simply a matter of industrialization and diversification. And underdevelopment is not simply a lack of these qualities. Today both the First World and Third World are increasingly mal-developed. The First World, producing less and consuming more, is increasingly parasitic on the Third World.

2. New Democracy will take new forms. In the past, imperialism divided the world, for the most part, into traditionally developed and traditionally underdeveloped countries. Traditionally underdeveloped countries were described in various ways: “semi-feudalism,” “comprador capitalism,” “bureaucrat capitalism,” etc. These descriptions emphasized various aspects of mal-development in the Third World. One implication of this was that revolution in the Third World could be described as a two stage process. The first stage is the New Democratic stage. The New Democratic revolution unites much of the peasantry, workers, petty bourgeoisie, and even some of the patriotic capitalists of the Third World against imperialism, for land reform, national development and basic democratic reforms. New Democratic revolution lays the basis for the second stage. The second stage is socialism, where the proletariat further reorganizes society in its interest. This lays the basis for communism, the end of all oppression. The changing nature of underdevelopment in the Third World today will affect the revolutionary process. The New Democracy of the future may not necessarily be an agricultural affair based on “land to the tiller.” It may not be based on land struggles at all. It may not be centered on the countryside. The slum dwelling classes and their concerns for shelter, to have their own small trade and businesses, and survival generally, may become a greater and greater part of the early revolutionary process, and of New Democracy. Or, this may lay the basis for a whole new kind of socialist revolution in the Third World: New Socialism.

3. The revolutionary agent will take ever new forms. The world economy has created vast reservoirs of impoverished people in the Third World who do not add to the total social product, but, rather, survive on the edges. Many of these people barely survive in the megaslums of the Third World. Many of them live in refugee camps or survive on aid. At the same time, in some parts of the Third World, the unionized industrial working class has become a relatively privileged strata among the population with less immediate interest in radical social transformation. This working class is sometimes more privileged than the numerous street vendors and small traders who reside in Third World slums. The concept of the proletariat need not be tied exclusively to a role within production per se, but can be tied to overall social position and impoverishment. In some places in the world, those who match Marx’s famous description of having “nothing to lose but their chains” are not always those who sell their labor to capitalists. Thus there is a rise of new proletarians.

4. Just as the class structure of the Third World has changed, so has the class structure of the First World. In the First World, the revolutionary class has passed from the scene. In the 1960s, there was some basis for thinking that a revolutionary social base existed within the ghettos and captive nations of the First World. Such a base is nonexistent today. There is no significant First World revolutionary class, no significant First World proletariat. There is no significant stand-in First World revolutionary class. This means that we must look beyond the First World for a revolutionary social base. This means global people’s war is the primary means of bringing the New Power of the proletariat to the First World.

5. With the growth of the global slum and new proletarians, the shape of future people’s wars will change. In some parts of the Third World, people’s war will follow the traditional Maoist pattern. It will be mostly peasant movement led by the communist line that establishes ever greater base areas and red zones, the new society in miniature, in those places where the state is weakest. It will be tied to New Democratic demands, especially the demand for land. It will be a protracted advance from the countryside to city. However, the changing world will make this pattern not viable everywhere. Some geographies make the traditional Maoist model problematic. Also, the growth in imperialist air power will affect the ability to set up traditional base areas and red zones. Most importantly, the growth of the urban population will make the urban slum more and more important in the people’s war.

6. There is a growing ecological crisis. The capitalist system is based on infinite expansion beyond our means. Yet our Earthly resources are finite. Thus capitalism is incompatible with the continued survival of the planetary ecosystem. First World consumption is out of proportion; it is leading us toward ecological catastrophe. Environments are rapidly changing due to human intervention. Revolutionaries of the future are going to have to adopt strategies that take this into account. Revolutionaries need to examine not just the forces of production and social relations, but also the conditions of production themselves. Revolutionaries need to take the natural world into account. Socialist development cannot treat nature as a never ending resource to be consumed. The New Power of the future will need to be ecologically sustainable. The survival of all life on Earth is on the line.

7. New technology and greater mobility open up new paths for revolution. Greater communication and mobility mean that revolutions may be increasingly dynamic in important ways. Subjective and objective conditions can change in explosive ways, very rapidly. Tempos can accelerate seemingly out of nowhere. Events in one location can quickly influence events and conditions around the world. Revolution will become more globalized in important ways. New technologies will have a profound on impact on how revolutions are made. New technologies will open up new possibilities during socialist construction.

Leading Light Communism has advanced revolutionary science in almost every way. This is a big part of why Leading Light Communism is a whole new stage of revolutionary science. It is the pinnacle of revolutionary science today. Political economy is key to making revolution. However, it is not enough to limit these advances to the realm of theory. To match our advances in theory, we must also advance our organizational forms to meet today’s challenges. We must strike out in ever new, bold ways. We must not be afraid to lead not only in the ideological realm, but also on the ground. We have the plan, the organization, the leadership. Follow the Leading Light. Be the Leading Light.

The Periods of the Cold War

This post is just an addition to what I wrote here yesterday, March 31, 2011.

Although yesterday I indicated general agreement with the Workers' World article with the exception of the portion under the heading "Working class enters anti-war movement", my position on one other part should be clarified as well:

During the first half of the 20th century, imperialist war was driven by inter-imperialist rivalry and struggles over which country would be able to loot the colonial peoples. During the latter part of the 20th century, war and the threat of war were driven by the struggle of imperialism against the socialist camp and the national liberation movements — the Cold War.

Now the permanent tendency of imperialism toward war and militarism is driven by the drive for reconquest of the territories lost in that period.

This part of the article is obviously key, as it addresses the historical record of the imperialist era of capitalism in very broad strokes. As indicated yesterday, I largely agree with the above quote, but my take on some aspects of the historical record might merit some clarification.

Following their correct summation of the period up through World War 2, Workers' World proceeds to lay out two distinctive periods that corresponded to actual U.S. government policies respectively called the Plan for the American Century (1947-1997) and the Plan for the New American Century (1997-present), which literally laid out/lay out (as applicable) strategies for world conquest. In the first of these post-WW2 periods, the U.S. won the basic victory, establishing itself as the sole surviving superpower. The second, current period is characterized by a drive to consolidate that victory by eliminating the phenomenon of "rogue states". All of this is correct. And yes, in the current period, all the imperialists are essentially united under American leadership against the remaining "rogue states" and those who seek to establish "rogue states".

However, this statement from the above quote..."During the latter part of the 20th century, war and the threat of war were driven by the struggle of imperialism against the socialist camp and the national liberation movements — the Cold War"....is somewhat a mischaracterization stemming from the WWP's persistent refusal to recognize that, for the most of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was not a socialist country, but a mighty imperialist power in its own right. The Cold War had a number of periods:

In the first period, which lasted roughly one decade (1945-55ish), the Soviet Union was still a socialist country and at the head of the socialist and anti-imperialist camp. For most of this period, tensions between the U.S. and the USSR were especially high and even spilled over into actual combat with each other in the Korean War. Tensions gradually cooled from 1951 on, as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin started considering the Korean War a stalemate and spent the next couple years negotiated a cease-fire. Then, after Stalin died and the Korean War ended in 1953, new Soviet leadership emerged at the top that was qualitatively more amenable to re-establishing diplomatic ties with the imperialists.

The second period began in 1956, when a new Soviet leader by the name of Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a "criminal" and jettisoned the previous view that an atomic/nuclear showdown between the socialist and capitalist camps was ultimately inevitable due to the belligerence of the latter, embracing instead a theory and policy of permanent "peaceful co-existence" with the imperialists. To rationalize this collaborative, anti-antagonistic policy, Khrushchev also put forward the theory of the "peaceful transition" into socialism, i.e. of the possibility of proletarian revolution without warfare. This policy shift on the USSR's part yielded a major split in the global anti-U.S. camp, led generally by socialist China. The Chinese Communists under Mao Zedong's leadership argued that the Soviet leadership was now pointing that country away from the objective of world revolution and in the direction of rapprochement with the imperialists and that the accomplishment of said feat would be impossible unless they abandoned socialism. The abandonment of socialism, they contended, would be a precondition for diplomatic rapprochement with the imperialists under U.S. leadership. Thus, it was argued, Khrushchev was a revisionist: someone who, while claiming to be a Marxist and perhaps even believing themself one, takes up politics that are fundamentally irreconcilable with Marxism. In 1963, Khrushchev did indeed reorganize the Soviet economy along profit lines, thus effectively restoring capitalism under a system of broad state ownership. But try as he did, Khrushchev was never able to establish a close diplomatic relationship with the U.S., and the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev saw an opening through which to make imperialist inroads of the country's own against U.S. imperialism in the Vietnam War and other national liberation struggles. Thus began the third period of the Cold War in the mid-1960s.

Under Brezhnev's leadership, the USSR undertook an aggressive foreign policy, literally taking a large number of semi-colonies and conquering those states under its influence that sought to challenge that influence. Meanwhile, from the start of the second period, China had been seeking to establish its leadership of the Cold War against the imperialist camp led by the United States, recognizing that the Soviet Union wasn't seriously looking to finish the world proletarian revolution. China's Cultural Revolution period (1966-69) marked the height of this effort. But the Chinese Maoists had not initially fully recognized the distinction between the compromising yet still ultimately socialist state of affairs on the USSR's part during the second period of the Cold War and that of the country's aggressive, social-imperialist policies that began in earnest in this new, third period of the Cold War. By the time of the Cultural Revolution, there had been some recognition that the Soviet Union was now basically capitalist, but no clear-cut recognition as yet that it was actually a highly aggressive imperialist power. That recognition came in 1968 and '69, when the USSR invaded and subjugated Czechoslovakia and repeatedly attacked China. It also came out in 1969 that the Soviet Union had developed more extensive plans for a nuclear confrontation with China than it had for one with the United States. Now it was clear: the imperialist camp now definitely included the Soviet Union, and as an aggressive superpower in its own right. From that point on, China wrongly took up an opportunistic policy of establishing a united front with the USA against Soviet social-imperialism. The latter was of much closer proximity to China and thus was viewed as the more imminent danger...to China. Had they thought more about what the greater danger to the world overall was, they might have acted differently and in a more principled way. Anyhow, America happily obliged, thus, over the course of the 1970s and early '80s, wiping out the socialist camp (which, during this period, consisted of China, Albania, North Vietnam, and Democratic Kampuchea) indirectly by bringing the leader of the remaining socialist camp, China, on a certain level, into its camp. By 1986, there were no remaining socialist states on Earth and the U.S. had clearly regained the upper hand in the Cold War against its bourgeois rival, the USSR. Now began the fourth and final period of the Cold War: the capitulation of the Soviet Union to the United States.

So I just wanted to clarify that there were these complex twists and turns to the Cold War. China's rapprochement with the United States in the 1970s and '80s was likely the single most determining factor in the outcome. In that move, one-fourth of humanity lost the socialist system and went back to capitalism, in league with the world's top-dog oppressor: it's main purveyor of violence and exploitation. So I would tend to argue that the Cold War, as an anti-imperialist low-level war, was basically lost in 1971, when the decision was made by the Chinese government to meet with U.S. president Nixon and to oust the opponents of that meet from the People's Liberation Army, and thus from essential control of the state. We are only just now recovering ideologically from that disaster. With the (real) socialist camp out of the way, America found beating out its only significant imperialist rival, the Soviet Union, comparatively easy. As I think you might be able to see by now, my take on the nature of the Cold War differs quite a lot from the WWP's pro-Soviet account. My take is considerably more complex. But on the ultimate outcome of the Cold War, the defeat of the socialist camp generally (IMO completely) and the establishment of America as the sole remaining superpower, we agree.

The Chance and Need to Boycott the Election Process

Note to Readers: The bulk of what follows is not my writing, but rather is that of my friend Dustin Slagle, who runs a blog called The Hong Se Sun. I have made substantial edits, removing contents I disagree with and adding some general thoughts in place of them, to more closely reflect my own perspective. This is part of a collaborative project we are doing. The original piece can be found here. Okay, here goes:

This blog post and general idea [in Dustin's case -- MQ] was pulled/inspired from a blog posted by a supporter of the RCP-PCR here.

If someone really wants to know why there is no (progressive) revolutionary consciousness in the US to speak of, one factor they might consider, in addition to decisive objective factors like the virtual non-existence of an American proletariat, is the political nature of the majority of the "socialist" groups in the US. How are even the few more progressive-minded Americans suppose to develop a revolutionary mindset when all these groups who claim to be revolutionary support nothing but reformist tactics and attack any groups directly calling for revolution as ultra-leftist? How is directly advocating revolution ultra-leftist? How is calling for revolution while denouncing revolution and participating in imperialist elections anything but reformist and social-democrat-esque?

Nearly all "left wing" groups in the America are fakes and paper tigers. They use the call "revolution" for opportunist reasons only. In reality they support this capitalist-imperialist system by organizing people around the demands of exploiters and on the terms of the imperialist enemy. One of the ways these groups help this system is by legitimizing it in people's minds; by trying to reform it from within rather than destroy it from without. I would argue that even just by participating in bourgeois elections, they accomplish this feat. Their participation legitimizes the bourgeois electoral process in people's minds. This obviously sends the wrong message to an important group coming into progressive circles, and that is the young people. The number of young people who say things like "we are real revolutionary socialists" followed directly by "wanna buy our paper or a book or some stickers or pins, how about a donation, vote for this person" makes me so sick to my stomach. That's especially true when you see these hypocrites wearing Mao shirts and hear them quoting the likes of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, yet then tell you how narrow and dogmatic you are for directly advocating proletarian revolution. Here's a good and relevant quote by Marx such people seem to have missed: "The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution." (That's from The Communist Manifesto.)

I think it obvious that communists should not be participating in elections in which the only possible outcome is more of the same: more imperialism, more plundering, more exploitation, more oppression, more misery for the world's vast majority. We need to be providing an alternative ideology to this fake democracy that is bourgeois democracy: democracy for the world's oppressing and exploiting minority, not for its oppressed and exploited majority. There is no good reason to give the illusion that these elections give those who would work on behalf of the international proletariat any real chance at creating positive change. Boycotting an election may not be in itself revolutionary, but it is, I believe, a correct tactic for any group claiming the world needs a new and much better system.

Just think for a moment about the whole history of all those communist parties and groups that went astray and strove to lead a proletarian transformation of society through electoral avenues. It is nothing but the history of failure, revisionism, betrayal, right wing coups, and horrific bloodbaths. Indonesia. Chile. Columbia. Nicaragua. Nepal. I don't even have to explain. You know to what I refer when I bring up those countries in connection to "communist" reliance on electoral avenues. And these are but a few of the examples that could be cited in this connection. Joining capitalist elections leads to nothing but betrayal at best (either on our own part or on the part of our enemy) and unfathomable disaster at worst. Never has this strategy succeeded. Never has it even gotten anywhere as a tactic that I can think of. The more you try to change the system from within, the more instead it changes you. Or finds an opening to destroy you.

Written by: Dustin Slagle
Edited by: Monkey Queen

(1) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html (their source is the turnout for elections sided with population of people 18 and older)

A Basic Introduction to Marxism

It occurs to me that, from time to time, some casual readers not versed in Marxism may conceivably find their way to this blog. I therefore think it prudent to provide some information on the basics of scientific socialism and some resources for (definitely recommended) further reading. I plan on writing a small handful of articles covering the most basic and fundamental elements of Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and perhaps some others if I should feel so inclined: one article per theory, with a list of recommended further readings included. This will be the first of these said articles. It is dedicated to informing the reader on the very, very basics of classical Marxism: the first school of scientific socialism.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were German-born intellectuals who worked in various cities in Europe as teachers, journalists, and political activists. As writers, they developed a sweeping theory of society and history, premised on the philosophical perspective of dialectical materialism, which provided them the framework within which to examine history and society in a scientific manner. Dialectical materialism is the perspective that material things are in a constant process of change brought about by the tension between conflicting or interacting forces, elements, or ideas. Historical materialism is that part of the theory of dialectical materialism which holds that the development of social thought and institutions is based upon material, economic forces (the production and distribution of the material requirements of life being the most basic purpose of civilization); it is the factor that enables the scientific analysis of the course of history. The basic idea is that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while, at the same time, developing internal contradictions (weaknesses) that contribute to its decay.

Marx and Engels asserted that the key to understanding human culture and history was the struggle between classes. They used the term class to refer to a group of people within society who share the same social and economic status. According to Marx and Engels, class struggles have occurred in every form of society, no matter what its economic structure, or mode of production: slavery, feudalism, or capitalism. In each of these kinds of societies, a minority of people own or control the means of production, such as land, raw materials, tools and machines, labor, and money. This minority constitutes the ruling class. The vast majority of people own and control very little. They mainly own their own capacity to work. The ruling class uses its economic power to exploit workers by appropriating their surplus labor. In other words, workers are compelled to labor not merely to meet their own needs, but also those of the exploiting ruling class. As a result, workers become alienated from the fruits of their labor.

Marx and Engels portrayed the grand sweep of Western history (most history that was well-known in their historical context was Western history) as a process of progressively evolving forms of society. The struggle between classes was the motor of social change, fueling revolutions and leading history from one epoch to the next. Just as primitive agrarian society had yielded centuries before to feudal society, and in Europe feudalism given way to industrial capitalism, so too would capitalism be overthrown. Analyzing 19th-century capitalistic society, Marx and Engels observed a class struggle raging between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists who controlled the means of production, and the proletariat, whom they described as the industrial workers of their time, whom they believed were rapidly falling into a proletarian condition; a condition of being property-less (that is, without capital of any kind) and thus rendered dependent upon the sale of their labor power for survival. In their view, the bourgeoisie appropriated wealth from the proletariat by paying low wages and keeping the profits from sales and technological innovation for themselves. Marx and Engels were confident that the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the increasingly large and impoverished proletariat was coming to a head in the foremost societies of the West. The inevitable outcome would be a revolution in which the proletariat, taking advantage of strikes, elections, and violence, would displace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. A political revolution was essential, in Marx’s view, because the state, with its armed power of enforcement, is the central instrument of capitalist society.

According to the theory of Marx and Engels, labor is the source of all value: all machines and tools produced, all land cultivated, all productive work that contributes to the provision for society of the material requirements for life, originate from labor. Justice therefore requires that, for a time, labor must also become the destiny of value. This morality corresponds to socialism: the short-term objective of the proletariat. Ultimately, however, the most basic problem of capitalistic society is that under capitalism production occurs for exchange purposes rather than for use purposes. In other words, production under capitalism occurs for the purpose of accumulating capital rather than for the purpose of meeting human needs. Private appropriation of the means of production thus comes into conflict with their basically and ever increasingly social character. Marx formulated that the alternative, socially-concerned morality of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" corresponds to full-fledged communism: the long-term objective of the proletariat.

Being the first property-less class in history, the proletariat (created by the advent of industrial capitalism), in Marxist theory, is therefore the first class in history with a direct, material interest in the bringing of all property under common ownership (because the only way the proletariat as a class can acquire property is by bringing it under common ownership), and of thus abolishing all classes and all exploitation itself. In Marxist theory, the previous non-existence of the proletariat explains why all earlier experiments in collectivism failed and why there is now, for the first time in history, the real possibility of establishing civilized communism.

Marx and Engels were almost silent about the particulars of what would happen after the proletarian revolution. They made provision for a brief transitional period during which workers would form a socialist society with the means of production owned in common. In this period, the proletarian majority of the population would need to enact a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat in order to seize the property of the bourgeois minority and stifle attempts to sabotage the popular government. Unlike previous ruling classes, in keeping with its class interests described above, the proletariat would not seek to install a new system of domination and exploitation; its goal would instead be a system of cooperation in which the immense majority, the proletariat, ruled for the benefit of all. Eventually, society would evolve into full communism, characterized by mutual affluence, the abolition of classes, and an end to the dehumanizing division of labor found in earlier forms of society. In this radically new condition, Marx and Engels wrote, abundance and social harmony would make it possible “for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.” Labor performed out of economic necessity would give way to truly voluntary activity such that "the free development of each [becomes] the condition for the free development of all". It would come to be the case that all people would freely share all the world.

I'll wrap up this brief sketch of classical Marxism with an excerpt from an article by the International Communist Current (located here: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/271_poc_01.html) because they've done what, in my view, is a good job therein of summing up the aspects of the classical Marxist understanding of history that remain to be discussed:

"...Each level of development of the productive forces of a particular society corresponds to a given type of productive relationship. The relations of production are the relations established between men and women in their activity of producing goods destined to satisfy their needs. In primitive societies the productivity of labour was so low that it scarcely satisfied the barest physical needs of the members of the community. Exploitation and economic inequality were impossible in such a situation: if certain individuals had appropriated to themselves or consumed goods in greater quantities than other members of this society, then the poorer off [majority --my addition] would not have been able to survive at all. Exploitation, generally in the form of slavery established as the result of the territorial conquest of one tribe by another, could not appear until the average level of human production had gone beyond the basic minimum needed for physical survival. But between the satisfaction of this basic minimum and the full satisfaction, not only of the material but also the intellectual needs of humanity, there exists an entire range of development in the productivity of labour. By means of such development, mankind steadily became the master of nature. In historical terms, it was this period which separated the dissolution of primitive communist society from the era when fully developed communism would be possible. Just as mankind wasn’t naturally ‘good’ in those ages when men and women weren’t exploited under the conditions of primitive communism, so it hasn’t been naturally ‘bad’ in the epochs of exploitation which have followed. The exploitation of man by man and the existence of economic privilege became possible when average human production exceeded the physical minimum needed for human life to reproduce itself. Both became necessary because the level of human production could not fully satisfy all the needs of all the members of society.

As long as that was the case, communism was impossible, whatever objections the anarchists may raise to the contrary. But it is exactly this situation which capitalism has itself radically modified, owing to the enormous increase in the productivity of labour which it has brought into being. Capitalism methodically exploited every scientific discovery, generalised associated labour, and put to use the natural and human riches of the entire world. But obviously the increase in the productivity of labour set in motion by capitalism was paid for by an intensification of exploitation on a scale unknown in human history. However, such a profound increase in human productivity does represent the material basis for a communist society. By making itself the master of nature, capitalism created the conditions by which humanity may become master of itself."

Marx and Engels described the proletariat as "the working class" of capitalist society because they saw it becoming the principal class that did the toiling under capitalism, providing the wealth of society which the capitalist would essentially and mostly steal for himself. Society, they believed, was thus rapidly polarizing into two great hostile camps: again, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. They believed that more than 90% of the world's population would soon consist of proletarians and this fact, together with the vast wealth created by industrial production and appropriated privately, pretty much guaranteed world proletarian revolution. Their essential strategy is summed up well in the slogan they advanced in The Communist Manifesto: "Workers of the world, unite!" By "workers", they basically meant proletarians, whom they believed either were already in many countries and/or would soon become everywhere the overwhelming majority. Middle classes of non-proletarian workers were a minor and rapidly disappearing factor in this worldview.

Strongly recommended further reading:

I'll recommend studying the selected works of Marx and Engels highlighted by Progress Publishers at the Marxist Internet Archive:

Volume 1: 1845-1859

Volume 2: 1860-1872

Volume 3: 1875-1895

Three of Vladimir Lenin's works are also valuable in coming to understand the basics of classical Marxism:

Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism

Frederick Engels

The Three Sources and Three Component-Parts of Marxism