To say it’s identical is an overstatement, but markets have been part of China’s policy, and part of the policies many other formerly impoverished counties. Without government policy intelligently choosing how to utilize markets (which is what happened in most of these formerly impoverished countries like the “Asian tigers”), markets alone could not have have brought the gains that they did. Markets have many downsides to them as well. Additionally non-government, non-market factors like unionization contributed to the rise out of poverty as well. And in the global north, “markets” have been fairly ineffective at raising the standard of living for the median worker. They have been effective at enriching the already rich however, contributing to wealth power-concentration and de-democratization.

You are making so much stuff up. My god it’s insane. Then you act like people haven’t read the super short Manifesto so you can continue your lies

Quite a lot of factual inaccuracies here.

> He meant what we now call the middle class.

Capitalists according to Marx are those that own the means of production, not the middle class.

> larger land owners were mostly outside of cities, and were well on the way to inevitable bankruptcy

He saw them as a declining class that would eventually merge with the industrial bourgeoisie. He didn’t predict their inevitable bankruptcy.

> quite a few governments in his time were individuals or families, but he didn't see them as the enemy, kind of, but not as the "source" of the evil of capitalism

Again, inaccurate. His view is that the state is an apparatus of the capitalist class structured to protect its property and interests. The state and the uber-rich are the primary enemies of the working class, in his view.

> Soviets initially offered to make Tsar Nicolas II the leader of international socialism. Only when he kept refusing did he become the enemy.

Citation needed. Are you just fabricating things? The Bolsheviks ideology was based on the idea that there would be a proletarian revolution that would dismantle the old capitalist and aristocratic order, which the Tsar represented.

> that wasn't true communism" argument!

There are many different varieties of socialism and communism. In fact many societies long into pre-recorded history have been peaceful, leaderless and without money - communist. Yet it would be a mistake to call those societies Stalinist for example.

> get everyone to work and back each day on rocket powered trams. Seriously.

Soviet plans were never that fantastical. Fabrication.

> the godess Gaia is a Titan who massacred, and then ate people. Men, women, children. Especially children

Gaia isn’t typically represented that way. She is not a Titan but mother of the Titans. Maybe you are thinking of Kronos.

> You know as well as I do that when Marx discussed "capitalists" he did not mean the rich.

Technically, not precisely “the rich”, but the people whose main interaction with rhe economy is through ownership of capital to which rented labor of others is applied (specifically, this is the haut bourgeoisie in Marxist theory.)

There is also the middle class (the petite bourgeoisie), those who have a (in broad terms) balance between ownership of capital and application of their own labor, most particulatly applying their own labor to their own capital as independent business operators as a kind of capitalists, but it was the haut bourgeoisie that Marx portrays as the problematic, exploitive, ruling class. The main issue with the petit bourgeoisie is their disinterest in improving the condition of the working class being exploited by the haut bourgeoisie; because they are already out of the state of alienation that comes from separation of labor and control of capital, and at risk of losing that status if they sufficiently rock the boat.

> He meant what we now call the middle class. Managers. Engineers. Store owners. (Small) company owners. Factory owners. Smaller landlords.

Nah, what we now call “the middle class” is mostly the middle income segment of the working class (Marx didn't really have a special term for them, for Lenin a lot of them would be in the proletarian intelligentsia.) But the group you name is a mix of them, the petit bourgeois, and in the case of factory owners the haut bourgeois (kind of weird that you think “factory owners” fits any modern definition of “middle class" that also includes line managers.)