This article focuses entirely on attacking one man instead of the actual issues democratic socialists are fighting for today, while conflating the modern ideology with a human who lived a long time ago. Marx is the white man whose work was popularized in the western world- I see nothing here that makes valid points against indigenous perspectives that differ from capitalism, or against modern western ideologies that have made significant advances since Marx’s time. I also don’t see any acknowledgment of the immense wealth inequality that exists in our world and nation that not only harms our economy but costs many their lives despite lifetimes of hard work- especially if they become chronically ill or disabled, like myself. Without Medicaid I would have died - that’s a socialist program. What I see is one privileged white man dunking on another at the cost of countless people whose stories he’ll never know or stop to consider. Health communities and societies look out for each other. When people are well and have the social support they need, we are intrinsically motivated to work, to build, to create, to do things that benefit ourselves and others. People did all of this before capitalism and will do so again when this system shows itself to be unsustainable. Hopefully the planet and significant parts of the population won’t die due to the greed and destruction of the ultra wealthy before that time comes. There’s a reason the wealthiest are building bunkers and a reason why so many people are outraged that insurance CEOs profit exorbitantly at the expense of so many individuals who are denied coverage for life-saving medical care. We’re living in a time of extreme ideological divide and until we learn that solidarity is the only way to survival and the way to build the most rewarding and beautiful society, we will continue to crumble at the most immediate cost of the working class and our youth.
Both ideologies have merit. Religion has merit. But here comes the secret ingredient in the soup: human greed! Once humankind gets involved the outcomes are based on power, greed and survival. Just like the animal kingdom! Just saying
Thanks for this! I have seen other versions of it. At first I was shocked. I kept finding other pieces of supporting evidence.... It is truly amazing how he (and his supporters) got this going as big as they did all based on 'oh poor me' crap...
Great article! For more on Marx, including his plan to infiltrate all institutions, starting with the Catholic Church, I highly recommend a book published in 2020, "The Devil and Karl Marx," by Paul Kengor. (I ordered it during the COVID plandemic.)
Kengor went to Europe to look at documents contemporary with Marx's life, and found letters addressed to Marx as "My Dear Satan." He also found reports by people who had seen Marx act as though he'd been possessed, presumably by the Devil.
Perhaps that sort of beginning of Marxism explains why socialist societies have always "ended up in tears" and millions of horrible deaths. If you want first-hand accounts from some of the survivors, check out your local small doughnut stores. At least in California, many of them are owned by Cambodia families, some of whose family members survived the Kymer Rouge's reign of socialist terror and can tell you what it was like.
When Marx was writing, London would have been a hellscape. That catchy chimney sweep song from Mary Poppins had as its basis a young boy climbing into chimneys breathing in deadly soot. Girls and boys were put into coal mines to work. I read that slave owners defended themselves, saying at least they weren't industrialists. While Marx was noting real issues, he was seemingly a gasbag that would have faded away. Such fate was escaped by Darwin's theory of Evolution and the Eugenics theory developed by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, who, except for this idea, was a brilliant polymath. Put all three together, and you get a bloody triangle with the Brahmin types continuing to meddle in our lives. I am reading Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon about an aging imprisoned revolutionary awaiting his turn at the forced confessional. It reads like a trolling of the modern Left so much that I have to remind myself that the author was a former true believer who published it in 1940. Darwin's theory really was used to raise class consciousness. In 2019, Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute interviewed David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, and David Gelernter on the topic of Mathematical Challenges To Darwin's Theory Of Evolution. Three very different academics conclude that it is just pseudoscience. Yet, academics keep thinking that with the right evolutionary move, they will push us to utopia. But this begs the question, why do the masses fall for it? You can throw as many pine cones as you want in a desert, and they won't seed. This is the question. Why is it so willingly embraced? The Khmer Rouge murdered 25% of their population - one in four. That is an astonishing number. Mao didn't do the killings. Others willingly did it.
I came across the work of Rene Girard and scapegoating. There seems to be something in human DNA where we conduct massive killings - usually at the behest of elites.
hmmm I will check that out.... So why do we (general populace) hold some others above ourselves (i.e. elites) when we all know they are the same as us (blood, bones, need oxygen, etc.) and those same elites need what we offer weird dichotomy imo .... its like a human who has a look that others have a reaction to (your really pretty, or smart or ??) and suddenly that person is guiding their life.... i don't know it is just something that has rolled around in my head almost my whole life... Thanks for your input/guidance
Somehow, during the lockdowns, I came across this paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299572373_Ritual_human_sacrifice_promoted_and_sustained_the_evolution_of_stratified_societies I have no idea how it popped up for me. I might have been researching Eugenics. That topic popped after researching what happened to Jacobson v. Mass. decision (smallpox vax case cited by our current Supreme Court) in later decisions. It turned out to be a whopper. The 1905 decision was used in Buck v. Bell (1927) to justify state power to sterilize those unfit to reproduce. Hitler didn't invent the system. The UK did, and flung it to the US, which cannonballed it to Germany in the 1920s, funded by Rockefeller. Hitler just took it to an even uglier level - it was already happening as they were killing off the unfit to live. The paper I linked is a study on the emergence of ritual killings with hierarchies. Stratified societies emerge when language becomes more sophisticated. The Piranha tribes are apparently the only people who do not have a complex language to describe future and past events and also do not have hierarchies. Tom Wolfe did a really fun book on the people, which is an easy read. People may say they want egalitarianism, but they really don't. Smart, inventive people invent useful things - like bathrooms and toilet paper.
Charles Darwin, a free mason English contemporary of Marx wrote his origin of the species. This kicked off the ever changing theory of evolution. Many today are adherents of the philosophy not knowing a thing about genetics or amino acids and proteins.
Proteins could never evolve, it is a scientific and statistical impossibility. It is much easier and scientific to believe in a creator .
People prefer self deception rather than having to answer for their lives and choices.
Thank you. I was just stating to type the same thing.
8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Some speculate the Russian revolution was engineered by agents of the wealthy because they feared the size and power of Russia.
And some quotes:
Remember kids, when the communist people take power, they always become a capitalist government. All of Soviet Russias production and means of production was seized by the government rationed out in starvation amounts to it's people, and the CCP take 90% of their peoples wealth and leave them in squalor. As soon as the people become the government, communism fails. On the alternative, as soon as capitalist leaders take hold in the government, the corporations become regulatory bodies and stack the system against the poor, and capitalism becomes a corporatocracy, and fails.
It's almost as if the problem isn't a matter of communism, socialism, or capitalism, which are all excellent human behaviors, but is actually the gross centralization of authority, and enforcement of specific behaviors as economic ideologies that we idolize as if they were some kind of broken, artificial gods.
The crimes committed by communist regimes should not be minimized, and the millions of people killed under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others deserve to be remembered.
But historical analysis requires more than attaching every crime of a regime directly to the writings of one thinker. We should distinguish between Marx’s theoretical ideas, the political systems later built in his name, and the decisions of particular regimes and leaders.
If we are serious about history, the standard should be consistent: examine ideas by their arguments, and governments by their institutions, policies and consequences. That allows us to condemn mass political violence without turning history into a slogan.
What makes this piece interesting is that it raises a legitimate question, but then risks answering a complex intellectual question with a personal biography.
Marx’s financial dependence, his debts, and Engels’ support are certainly relevant to understanding the man behind the theory. Hypocrisy and personal inconsistency can tell us something about an intellectual figure. But they do not, by themselves, prove or disprove the validity of an economic or political theory.
A stronger test is to examine the ideas themselves: What did Marx correctly identify about capitalism? Where was he wrong? Which predictions failed? Which concepts remain useful for understanding inequality, labor, class, and political power? And where did Marxist systems produce outcomes fundamentally different from what their advocates promised?
There is also an important strategic lesson here. Ideas should be judged by evidence and consequences, not by the saintliness—or the failures—of their founders.
That standard should apply equally to Marx, capitalism, socialism, nationalism, liberalism, conservatism, and every other political doctrine. If we dismiss an idea because its founder was personally flawed, we risk replacing analysis with character assassination. If we accept an idea because its founder was admirable, we make the opposite mistake.
The most useful question is therefore not whether Marx was a “freeloader.” It is whether his diagnosis of society was accurate, where it was mistaken, and what history ultimately did with the ideas he helped create.
That is a much harder question—but also a much more intellectually honest one.
— Wahidullah Noorzai
Former Senior ANP/ANCOP Officer | Strategic & Security Analyst
Are you aware that communist governments murdered over 100,000,000 of their own civilian subjects over the past century? You show no sign that you are.
Remember the iconic ad of a frying pan and somebody cracking an egg on the sizzling frying pan and the voiceover saying “this is your brain” and then he cracks the egg and says “this is your brain on drugs”. Each of the communist societies that have existed have failed miserably. Unfortunately, the option of uncontrolled capitalism that is worse than communism. Capitalism and communism meet in the same spot. It’s where they go from there that’s the difference.
what is frightening is that we’re giving a platform to the socialist party in the United States were one did not exist in the past. I understand our leaders have failed us, but I’m afraid that the brainless public just might elect more of the socialists in a country with a constitution like ours. It’s ours to lose!
I understand the concern you are raising, especially about what happens when an ideology becomes stronger than the institutions designed to contain and correct its consequences.
But my experience in Afghanistan taught me to look at these questions from a slightly different angle.
The decisive issue is not always whether a society calls itself capitalist, socialist, democratic, or something else. The deeper question is whether its institutions can absorb pressure, correct mistakes, adapt to changing conditions, and preserve meaningful choices before the situation becomes irreversible.
In the field, I learned that systems rarely fail because of one decision alone. They become vulnerable when assumptions harden, alternatives disappear, warning signs are ignored, and institutions lose the ability to reassess the situation.
That is why I see both uncontrolled capitalism and rigid state control as potential problems when they reduce institutional accountability and narrow the space for correction. The labels may be different, but the strategic danger can become similar: concentration of power, weakened feedback, and fewer alternatives.
For me, the real strength of a constitutional system is therefore not simply the economic model it follows. It is its ability to preserve freedom of action — the capacity to correct itself without having to collapse first.
Afghanistan taught me that once a system loses its alternatives, even a powerful system can become strategically fragile.
The question, then, is not only what ideology we choose.
It is whether the system we build can continue to adapt when reality changes.
— Wahidullah Noorzai
Former Senior ANCOP/ANP Officer | Field-Based Strategic & Security Analyst
Yes, I am aware of the enormous human toll associated with communist regimes, including mass executions, political repression, forced labor, and catastrophic famines. Those victims deserve to be remembered and studied honestly.
But acknowledging those crimes is different from assuming that every death attributed to every communist government can be reduced to one precise number or automatically attributed to Marx himself.
My point is not to defend communism. It is to apply the same historical standard to every ideology: examine the ideas, examine how governments implemented them, examine the evidence, and never excuse mass suffering because it was committed in the name of a political doctrine we happen to favor.
Absolutely. Understanding an ideology also requires examining the character, choices, and contradictions of the people who shaped it. Ideas should be studied seriously, but their authors should not be placed beyond criticism.
Are you saying that but for one bad parent, we might have been spared Communism?
Is that supposed to inspire us to be better parents, or to not be parents?
On the EscapeKey substack s/he lays out how managerial control (i.e. technocratic socialism) is gradually replacing governance. If you control the money you control the society. So it doesnt really matter if the DSA gets a few more or less seats in the govt-for-show that is our Congress. The process continues with people like Soros and his Open Society to cheer it along and put the human cogs into place in govt & industry.
Wasn't Marx paid by Nathan Rothschild to write "The Communist Manifesto"? Aren't Marxism, fascism and NAZIsm all divide-and-conquer tools of the Rothschilds?
You can criticize Marx to death, and rightly, but it won't make any difference.
The real issue the kids are responding to is that the capitalism of this era is on the fritz. The conservatives concentrate on defending something that no longer works the way it was supposed to. It's become mafia capitalism. Crony capitalism.
Unless there is another option, they'll reach for the option offered by the loony utopians. Cuz it sounds good and hey, "it's never been tried properly!"
This article focuses entirely on attacking one man instead of the actual issues democratic socialists are fighting for today, while conflating the modern ideology with a human who lived a long time ago. Marx is the white man whose work was popularized in the western world- I see nothing here that makes valid points against indigenous perspectives that differ from capitalism, or against modern western ideologies that have made significant advances since Marx’s time. I also don’t see any acknowledgment of the immense wealth inequality that exists in our world and nation that not only harms our economy but costs many their lives despite lifetimes of hard work- especially if they become chronically ill or disabled, like myself. Without Medicaid I would have died - that’s a socialist program. What I see is one privileged white man dunking on another at the cost of countless people whose stories he’ll never know or stop to consider. Health communities and societies look out for each other. When people are well and have the social support they need, we are intrinsically motivated to work, to build, to create, to do things that benefit ourselves and others. People did all of this before capitalism and will do so again when this system shows itself to be unsustainable. Hopefully the planet and significant parts of the population won’t die due to the greed and destruction of the ultra wealthy before that time comes. There’s a reason the wealthiest are building bunkers and a reason why so many people are outraged that insurance CEOs profit exorbitantly at the expense of so many individuals who are denied coverage for life-saving medical care. We’re living in a time of extreme ideological divide and until we learn that solidarity is the only way to survival and the way to build the most rewarding and beautiful society, we will continue to crumble at the most immediate cost of the working class and our youth.
Both ideologies have merit. Religion has merit. But here comes the secret ingredient in the soup: human greed! Once humankind gets involved the outcomes are based on power, greed and survival. Just like the animal kingdom! Just saying
I don't believe any of this nonsense. There is always two sides to the story.
Thanks for this! I have seen other versions of it. At first I was shocked. I kept finding other pieces of supporting evidence.... It is truly amazing how he (and his supporters) got this going as big as they did all based on 'oh poor me' crap...
Amen.
Here's another for 9/11 Jeeze!!
https://www.theinteldrop.org/2026/09/11/9-11-when-israel-nuked-new-york-and-america-surrendered-the-truth-3/
Insightful commentary. Thanks!
Great article! For more on Marx, including his plan to infiltrate all institutions, starting with the Catholic Church, I highly recommend a book published in 2020, "The Devil and Karl Marx," by Paul Kengor. (I ordered it during the COVID plandemic.)
Kengor went to Europe to look at documents contemporary with Marx's life, and found letters addressed to Marx as "My Dear Satan." He also found reports by people who had seen Marx act as though he'd been possessed, presumably by the Devil.
Perhaps that sort of beginning of Marxism explains why socialist societies have always "ended up in tears" and millions of horrible deaths. If you want first-hand accounts from some of the survivors, check out your local small doughnut stores. At least in California, many of them are owned by Cambodia families, some of whose family members survived the Kymer Rouge's reign of socialist terror and can tell you what it was like.
When Marx was writing, London would have been a hellscape. That catchy chimney sweep song from Mary Poppins had as its basis a young boy climbing into chimneys breathing in deadly soot. Girls and boys were put into coal mines to work. I read that slave owners defended themselves, saying at least they weren't industrialists. While Marx was noting real issues, he was seemingly a gasbag that would have faded away. Such fate was escaped by Darwin's theory of Evolution and the Eugenics theory developed by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, who, except for this idea, was a brilliant polymath. Put all three together, and you get a bloody triangle with the Brahmin types continuing to meddle in our lives. I am reading Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon about an aging imprisoned revolutionary awaiting his turn at the forced confessional. It reads like a trolling of the modern Left so much that I have to remind myself that the author was a former true believer who published it in 1940. Darwin's theory really was used to raise class consciousness. In 2019, Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute interviewed David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, and David Gelernter on the topic of Mathematical Challenges To Darwin's Theory Of Evolution. Three very different academics conclude that it is just pseudoscience. Yet, academics keep thinking that with the right evolutionary move, they will push us to utopia. But this begs the question, why do the masses fall for it? You can throw as many pine cones as you want in a desert, and they won't seed. This is the question. Why is it so willingly embraced? The Khmer Rouge murdered 25% of their population - one in four. That is an astonishing number. Mao didn't do the killings. Others willingly did it.
i keep asking that 'why' question over and over....
I came across the work of Rene Girard and scapegoating. There seems to be something in human DNA where we conduct massive killings - usually at the behest of elites.
hmmm I will check that out.... So why do we (general populace) hold some others above ourselves (i.e. elites) when we all know they are the same as us (blood, bones, need oxygen, etc.) and those same elites need what we offer weird dichotomy imo .... its like a human who has a look that others have a reaction to (your really pretty, or smart or ??) and suddenly that person is guiding their life.... i don't know it is just something that has rolled around in my head almost my whole life... Thanks for your input/guidance
Somehow, during the lockdowns, I came across this paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299572373_Ritual_human_sacrifice_promoted_and_sustained_the_evolution_of_stratified_societies I have no idea how it popped up for me. I might have been researching Eugenics. That topic popped after researching what happened to Jacobson v. Mass. decision (smallpox vax case cited by our current Supreme Court) in later decisions. It turned out to be a whopper. The 1905 decision was used in Buck v. Bell (1927) to justify state power to sterilize those unfit to reproduce. Hitler didn't invent the system. The UK did, and flung it to the US, which cannonballed it to Germany in the 1920s, funded by Rockefeller. Hitler just took it to an even uglier level - it was already happening as they were killing off the unfit to live. The paper I linked is a study on the emergence of ritual killings with hierarchies. Stratified societies emerge when language becomes more sophisticated. The Piranha tribes are apparently the only people who do not have a complex language to describe future and past events and also do not have hierarchies. Tom Wolfe did a really fun book on the people, which is an easy read. People may say they want egalitarianism, but they really don't. Smart, inventive people invent useful things - like bathrooms and toilet paper.
Charles Darwin, a free mason English contemporary of Marx wrote his origin of the species. This kicked off the ever changing theory of evolution. Many today are adherents of the philosophy not knowing a thing about genetics or amino acids and proteins.
Proteins could never evolve, it is a scientific and statistical impossibility. It is much easier and scientific to believe in a creator .
People prefer self deception rather than having to answer for their lives and choices.
Thank you. I was just stating to type the same thing.
8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Marx was controlled opposition working for the banker/merchant class.
Here's a long read detailing that in excruciating detail:
https://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf
Some speculate the Russian revolution was engineered by agents of the wealthy because they feared the size and power of Russia.
And some quotes:
Remember kids, when the communist people take power, they always become a capitalist government. All of Soviet Russias production and means of production was seized by the government rationed out in starvation amounts to it's people, and the CCP take 90% of their peoples wealth and leave them in squalor. As soon as the people become the government, communism fails. On the alternative, as soon as capitalist leaders take hold in the government, the corporations become regulatory bodies and stack the system against the poor, and capitalism becomes a corporatocracy, and fails.
It's almost as if the problem isn't a matter of communism, socialism, or capitalism, which are all excellent human behaviors, but is actually the gross centralization of authority, and enforcement of specific behaviors as economic ideologies that we idolize as if they were some kind of broken, artificial gods.
Samuel Streeter
The crimes committed by communist regimes should not be minimized, and the millions of people killed under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others deserve to be remembered.
But historical analysis requires more than attaching every crime of a regime directly to the writings of one thinker. We should distinguish between Marx’s theoretical ideas, the political systems later built in his name, and the decisions of particular regimes and leaders.
If we are serious about history, the standard should be consistent: examine ideas by their arguments, and governments by their institutions, policies and consequences. That allows us to condemn mass political violence without turning history into a slogan.
This is the best history lesson about Marx I’ve ever read and makes more sense around the way he supposedly lived in poverty and squalor (by choice?).
What makes this piece interesting is that it raises a legitimate question, but then risks answering a complex intellectual question with a personal biography.
Marx’s financial dependence, his debts, and Engels’ support are certainly relevant to understanding the man behind the theory. Hypocrisy and personal inconsistency can tell us something about an intellectual figure. But they do not, by themselves, prove or disprove the validity of an economic or political theory.
A stronger test is to examine the ideas themselves: What did Marx correctly identify about capitalism? Where was he wrong? Which predictions failed? Which concepts remain useful for understanding inequality, labor, class, and political power? And where did Marxist systems produce outcomes fundamentally different from what their advocates promised?
There is also an important strategic lesson here. Ideas should be judged by evidence and consequences, not by the saintliness—or the failures—of their founders.
That standard should apply equally to Marx, capitalism, socialism, nationalism, liberalism, conservatism, and every other political doctrine. If we dismiss an idea because its founder was personally flawed, we risk replacing analysis with character assassination. If we accept an idea because its founder was admirable, we make the opposite mistake.
The most useful question is therefore not whether Marx was a “freeloader.” It is whether his diagnosis of society was accurate, where it was mistaken, and what history ultimately did with the ideas he helped create.
That is a much harder question—but also a much more intellectually honest one.
— Wahidullah Noorzai
Former Senior ANP/ANCOP Officer | Strategic & Security Analyst
Are you aware that communist governments murdered over 100,000,000 of their own civilian subjects over the past century? You show no sign that you are.
Remember the iconic ad of a frying pan and somebody cracking an egg on the sizzling frying pan and the voiceover saying “this is your brain” and then he cracks the egg and says “this is your brain on drugs”. Each of the communist societies that have existed have failed miserably. Unfortunately, the option of uncontrolled capitalism that is worse than communism. Capitalism and communism meet in the same spot. It’s where they go from there that’s the difference.
what is frightening is that we’re giving a platform to the socialist party in the United States were one did not exist in the past. I understand our leaders have failed us, but I’m afraid that the brainless public just might elect more of the socialists in a country with a constitution like ours. It’s ours to lose!
I understand the concern you are raising, especially about what happens when an ideology becomes stronger than the institutions designed to contain and correct its consequences.
But my experience in Afghanistan taught me to look at these questions from a slightly different angle.
The decisive issue is not always whether a society calls itself capitalist, socialist, democratic, or something else. The deeper question is whether its institutions can absorb pressure, correct mistakes, adapt to changing conditions, and preserve meaningful choices before the situation becomes irreversible.
In the field, I learned that systems rarely fail because of one decision alone. They become vulnerable when assumptions harden, alternatives disappear, warning signs are ignored, and institutions lose the ability to reassess the situation.
That is why I see both uncontrolled capitalism and rigid state control as potential problems when they reduce institutional accountability and narrow the space for correction. The labels may be different, but the strategic danger can become similar: concentration of power, weakened feedback, and fewer alternatives.
For me, the real strength of a constitutional system is therefore not simply the economic model it follows. It is its ability to preserve freedom of action — the capacity to correct itself without having to collapse first.
Afghanistan taught me that once a system loses its alternatives, even a powerful system can become strategically fragile.
The question, then, is not only what ideology we choose.
It is whether the system we build can continue to adapt when reality changes.
— Wahidullah Noorzai
Former Senior ANCOP/ANP Officer | Field-Based Strategic & Security Analyst
Very well said, but basically what I said. Man is the variable we can’t fully control.
Absolutely. That is precisely why judgment and adaptability matter so much—the plan may be ours, but human behavior can always change the situation.
Yes, I am aware of the enormous human toll associated with communist regimes, including mass executions, political repression, forced labor, and catastrophic famines. Those victims deserve to be remembered and studied honestly.
But acknowledging those crimes is different from assuming that every death attributed to every communist government can be reduced to one precise number or automatically attributed to Marx himself.
My point is not to defend communism. It is to apply the same historical standard to every ideology: examine the ideas, examine how governments implemented them, examine the evidence, and never excuse mass suffering because it was committed in the name of a political doctrine we happen to favor.
The victims should come before the ideology.
OK, but that does not preclude discussing Marx's character flaws as this article does.
Absolutely. Understanding an ideology also requires examining the character, choices, and contradictions of the people who shaped it. Ideas should be studied seriously, but their authors should not be placed beyond criticism.
Are you saying that but for one bad parent, we might have been spared Communism?
Is that supposed to inspire us to be better parents, or to not be parents?
On the EscapeKey substack s/he lays out how managerial control (i.e. technocratic socialism) is gradually replacing governance. If you control the money you control the society. So it doesnt really matter if the DSA gets a few more or less seats in the govt-for-show that is our Congress. The process continues with people like Soros and his Open Society to cheer it along and put the human cogs into place in govt & industry.
Wasn't Marx paid by Nathan Rothschild to write "The Communist Manifesto"? Aren't Marxism, fascism and NAZIsm all divide-and-conquer tools of the Rothschilds?
Of all people, Marx was definitely not a Marxist!
https://thedukereport.substack.com/p/how-the-british-invented-communism
https://thedukereport.substack.com/p/the-milner-fabian-conspiracy-explainer-f57
You can criticize Marx to death, and rightly, but it won't make any difference.
The real issue the kids are responding to is that the capitalism of this era is on the fritz. The conservatives concentrate on defending something that no longer works the way it was supposed to. It's become mafia capitalism. Crony capitalism.
Unless there is another option, they'll reach for the option offered by the loony utopians. Cuz it sounds good and hey, "it's never been tried properly!"