There you go capitalizing “revolution” again. And nothing in Marx’s words said such a thing, but in fact he absolutely calls for revolution in the Manifesto.
Marx reiterates this over and over, that Capitalism’s economic forces will inherently destroy itself, therefore it is not needed to induce a Revolution …
If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production; then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. …Sounds like creating a revolutionary vanguard to me and fomenting a bloody revolution thereby. Of course, Marx is utterly wrong about such a revolution “swe(eping) away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms” because the “workers” now have become the antagonist as a class of people. But then again, he was wrong about a lot of things, and that does not prevent his acolytes/adherents from being just as wrong.
And yet they attack family, private property, religion and borders, all four of which the working class (in reality) champion.
Marx and Engels would never embrace the concept of White Privilege despite being anti-racist because the concept of having a racial or even a national identity was a “False Consciousness”. To attack somebody for being White would be counter-revolutionary because a racial identity is a delusion and separates workers from having solidarity …
Marx makes this explicitly clear in the Manifesto itself if you read it in its entirety.
"The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 26)
If you also read Capital, he writes of the concept of the dialectic of history. Marx states, and it is a central thesis to his entire economic theory, that the "Contradictions of Capitalism" inevitably lead to its destruction. Now as to why "Contradiction" is capitalized, it is because the term is used in a rather unique Hegelian sense. "Contradiction" does not mean logically incoherent, but the inherent tension and force in the system of Capitalism will inevitably lead to its destruction, which is an extremely Hegelian understanding of history that is entirely metaphysical and not even remotely scientific.
"It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future." (Capital Volume I, p. 13)
"But Capitalist production begets its own negation with the inexorability which governs the metamorphoses of nature." (Capital, Volume I, p. 837)
This is why Marx stated that the Revolution would emerge among the Proletariat in advanced Capitalist countries, and not backwards nations. This is why Lenin and Mao were both Revisionists, because Marx stated that a feudal economy cannot transition to socialism without going through the Capitalist phase of history. Mao was successful because he defied Marx AND Lenin by mobilizing the peasants as a revolutionary cadre, which is a violation according to both. I get the impression that you have not read Marx other than selected excerpts, or simply you have only read the Manifesto. I suggest you read Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics for a primer, because everything I have mentioned is covered in that book. I also capitalize the term Revolution because Marx uses this word in a rather specific sense, much like most of his writing he uses terms with definitions that are not congruent with common understanding. This is another problem Marx has which is the result of his Hegelian influence, he is turgid and opaque in his writing style.
Sounds like creating a revolutionary vanguard to me and fomenting a bloody revolution thereby. Of course, Marx is utterly wrong about such a revolution “swe(eping) away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms” because the “workers” now have become the antagonist as a class of people. But then again, he was wrong about a lot of things, and that does not prevent his acolytes/adherents from being just as wrong.
Once again, you're interpreting Marx incorrectly. Your interpretation is actually a Revisionist stance. Marx speaks of the Proletariat as a class, not as a Vanguard. We know this because in his own correspondence and of his known personal detestation of Blanqui, he did not believe that a top-down attempt at a revolution could successfully occur in the manner he envisioned. It can be noted that Marx did not participate in revolutionary acts of violence in his lifetime, unlike other radicals of his time. Furthermore, while Marx was in support of using violence, both he and Engels were not opposed to peaceful means, much to the chagrin of Lenin who attacked Bernstein for his attempts at democratic change. Marx simply expected violence to be necessary, but ironically believed the Revolution would be less violent than preceding bourgeois revolutions.
"...the inevitable social revolution might be effected by entirely peaceful and legal means," (Capital, Volume I, p. 32.)
Engels writes, "the bourgeoisie and the government came to be more afraid of the legal than the illegal action of the workers' party, of the results of elections than of those rebellion." (The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 via Selected Works, Volume I, p. 130)
"Let us have no illusions about it: a real victory of an insurrection over the military in street fighting, a victory as between two armies, is one of the rarest exceptions." (ibid)
"The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionists", the "over-throwers",—we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow. The parties of Order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves... And if we are not so crazy as to let ourselves be driven to street fighting in order to please them, then in the end there is nothing left for them to do but themselves break through this fatal legality." (The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 via Selected Works, Volume I, p. 136)
Engels himself seemed to be more reluctant towards violence than Marx, as he criticized previous Reigns of Terror. Lenin would have labelled him a coward.
"We think of this as the reign of people who inspire terror; on the contrary, it is the reign of people who are themselves terrified. Terror consists mostly of useless cruelties perpetrated by frightened people in order to reassure themselves." (Selected Correspondence, p. 303.)
So then, why did Marx attack Jews in Zum Judenfrage? He did not just attack Judaism, but Jews themselves (the descendants of Judah). That is absolutely attacking a race. And that is what this thread is about.
Because Marx in private was a complete hypocritical scumbag who thought he was the greatest genius who ever lived and anyone who got in his way infuriated him. His biggest problem with Jews is that they were often successful in business and thus part of the Capitalist Class, and also because their identity as a Jew is yet another concept of False Consciousness. To Marx, Class was the only real identity a person could have. Marx doesn't even see Judaism as being anything other than a reflection of the economic conditions of the Jewish people, because Marx is a materialist. The Woke agenda accepts that identity is real, especially People of Color, but only inherently attacks White identity because of its supposed privileged status. Marx believed all identity other than class was a delusion and had to go.