1. It’s not anti-Marxist, Engels was Bourgeois and allocated profit to fund revolution. If you can assist in communal development by hooking into the profit motive of the global economy, that’s okay. (We should however, cross-reference someone’s class interests with the politics they are espousing. Their class background could be the source of Revisionism.)

2. In Imperialist countries there’s very little difference between wage-laborers and the petty-bourgeoisie “proper” (as in, propertied), it mostly boils down to lifestyle choice (within similar opportunities), risks and gambles.

3. In many economies, there are nationalities (or castes, religions - Pale of Settlement) that are gate-kept from the wage-work ladder, these are the small business (often immigrants) selling food at metro stations or outside stadiums, the (historically) Black windshield washers, shoe-shiners, and other such “hustler” work. These are indeed petty-Bourgeois relations but they are enforced in a semi-formal, lumpenized form. The bottom of the petty-Bourgeoisie can be lower economically than minimum-wage work, because even minimum-wage work can be turned into a privilege (Diploma, GED).

4. Marxists need not be Proletarians, however, their overall life’s work needs to be working toward the eventual emancipation of the Proletariat (exploited segment of the workforce).

5. Most Imperialist countries, have little to no Proletariat “proper” (exploited laborers, realistically paid less than the global average value of labor or around less than $5-6 USD, min-wage in Haiti is 10% of this). Un-exploited wage-laborers, often referred to labor-aristocracy or (dated) “servants”, make the bulk of an Imperialist country’s workforce.

Individual choice from the Liberal ideology is not Marxist solution for Capitalism in decay. The response to local material condition and holistic change to society are the approach of Marxism. In realistic scenario, for-profit business operation is not evil by itself; it depends on the business context, the business ethics, and the approach to generate revenue. The Capitalists who use Adam Smith’s book of The Wealth of Nations to justify exploitation of marginalized segment of the population were only making a misinterpretation since Adam Smith wrote that personal interest should motivate mutual cooperation for mutual interest instead of profit at the cost of the other party contrary to the statement by the Wall Street Capitalists who depend hoarding of wealth by the rich 1% to utilizes the trickle down theory.