I would argue, not automatically. What it's saying is that capitalism generates objective consequences, such as, for instance class struggle. But its consequences are multiple and complex and historically-determined. And so in Europe class struggle produced certain consequences such as the growth of an officially-recognized labor movement and a labor aristocracy and bourgeois socialist opportunists to exploit and coopt class struggle politically. European social-democracy is rooted in this tradition, which represents class compromise with the imperialist bourgeoisie of their country, in the framework of nationalist/chauvinist liberal ideology and social institutions for the redistribution of the profits of imperialism. This would not qualify since the explicit intention and result of this approach was counterinsurgency, that is to dampen the revolutionary struggle of the masses (even in Europe at one time this was a real threat) with social bribery. That is not exactly a movement against the current order.
There are other consequences capitalism generates though. For example, countries throughout the Middle East have been invaded, occupied, bombed, terrorized, and subject to all kinds of violence due to imperialist powers like the USA and Russia. Their proxy struggles and the USA in particular's interventions and occupations have spawned widespread political violence and economic disruption which has displaced millions. Many of these people are now fleeing to Europe, these same bastions of Social Democracy where the white working masses now turn against refugees who have been displaced because of the imperialism these same white workers are complicit in and not infrequently support politically! This, we could say, is one of the real movements with which communism is concerned, and with which communists are or at least should be concerned. It is a case of the direct violence of capitalism and specifically imperialism at every step of a complicated and intricate history going back centuries now, even down to a room of white imperialists drawing many of the national boundaries of the Middle East by themselves around the end of WWI, leading to all kinds of problems as you seem aware of by your flair). The people of the Middle East deserve a peace and self-government that capitalism will never and can never give them, and the refugees who have been displaced by all the violence deserve the right of return, all assistance needed to get back should they wish to return, and rights to safety, material security, and personal freedom as long as they choose to stay abroad.
That is what is meant by a real movement which abolishes the present state of things.
I think that's important, since apparently the goal of European social-democracy is to "integrate" the refugees into European capitalism rather than to stop the fucking bombings and interventions or actually do something about the white supremacy they will face while they are in Europe, including from the immigrations arms of the European social-democracies.