very interesting, and I agree and was thinking of this question sometimes which is, what to do about the masses of society who aren't in the "workering" class. Obviously you can divide where Marx divides but the thing is that the amount of workers who have agency in the system is over 20%, and until recently was growing pretty linearly. It only stopped when we, by choice and bad luxury, stopped being progressive (and not particularly leftist). This is why "the revolution" by "the workers" (what about self-indulgent artists who don't want to be workers, even at the shorter, fairer workweek times) "against the bourgeoisie" never seemed like the convincing end game means. It seemed like as long as you were making any progress, you were achieving the same end goals of universal welfare and freedom and dignity. Why can't the gentler forces of history overpower the concentrated forces of a particular class, many of whom aren't even actively aware they are trying to maintain any status quo?
I don't understand what you mean by "workers who have agency in the system."
Let's be clear: progressivism has been driven by the pressure of the working class itself. It would not exist without the working class applying pressure to better their lot. Socialists merely being the political organization of one form of that pressure application, as we give class struggle a more concrete direction by showing the road map to the working class.
These are the forces that have pushed things so far already. But why have they been able to be pushed, without the need for violent revolution to forcibly install them? The answer is two-fold. First, they have not required complete destruction of the oppressing class, but they
have required a great deal of violence. A peaceful strike is violence against the system. Second, these changes, while causing increasing inconvenience for the ruling class, have not threatened the fundamentals of their power: private property and class dictatorship. By giving ground to progressives, they alleviated the immediate pressure toward revolution (such as happened in Russia, where the ruling order was implacably intransigent, and allowed things to boil over) and consolidated their power with the new way of doing things. Capital is nothing if not adaptable. But the goal of the socialist movement is socialism, and given adequate guidance, the working class will take itself there. However, this change of events is not merely an inconvenience for the capitalist, to which he must now adapt: it is a game-changer, because it threatens the base of his power and privilege. He will not allow this to be asked away from him, and he will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. Witness the stalwart resistance of the counter-revolution in France, in Russia, in China, in Mexico, and here in the United States, during our revolution: do you still think a kindler, gentler revolution will accomplish anything of meaning?
And if you still don't believe me, read
The Iron Heel.
How would you describe the nature of this molding?
By whom?
Are left-wing libertarians marxists?
If they use Marxist historical analysis, then they are.
