Marx’s ideas suck because they rely on lazy simplifications that collapse the moment they touch reality. He reduced society to class, treated history like it has a fixed direction, and assumed you could abolish markets and just plan everything rationally. That ignores how economies actually work. They are information systems driven by signals, incentives, and constant adjustment. When you destroy those signals, you do not get equality or efficiency, you get shortages, waste, and stagnation. And when that happens, Marxism always has the same escape route: it was not the system, it was enemies, saboteurs, or people who were not conscious enough. A theory that explains every failure by blaming people instead of itself is not deep, it is dangerous.

Marx is guilty in an ideological sense even if he never signed execution orders. He normalized the idea that extreme concentration of power is acceptable during a transition and that violence can be historically necessary. Once you teach people that they embody history and that opponents are obstacles to human liberation, repression becomes easy to justify. You are no longer hurting people, you are removing barriers. That logic did not come from nowhere, it is built into the framework. The mass crimes that followed were not accidents or misunderstandings. They were the predictable result of a theory that excuses brutality in the present by promising utopia in the future.

Marxism collapses once you notice it confuses moral outrage with analysis. It starts from real anger about inequality, then jumps straight to a total theory that claims to explain history, economics, politics, and even human psychology all at once. That kind of totalizing framework is a red flag. It leaves no room for partial fixes, tradeoffs, or plural solutions. Everything has to be uprooted, ownership rewritten, society reset. In practice that means constant instability, because any gradual reform looks like betrayal and any mixed system looks illegitimate. A theory that only works after you burn everything down is not serious governance.

Another major problem is how Marxism treats power as neutral if the right class holds it. It assumes domination magically stops being domination once it is done in the name of workers. That is naive at best and dishonest at worst. Power does not become gentle because you renamed it. Centralized control over production, speech, and opportunity creates a ruling layer no matter what you call it. Marxism has no reliable internal brakes against this because it distrusts liberal constraints like independent courts, pluralism, or limits on authority. Those are dismissed as bourgeois tricks, which conveniently leaves nothing to stop abuse except the goodwill of the people in charge.

Finally, Marxism is hostile to failure and uncertainty, which is fatal for any complex system. It promises historical certainty and moral clarity, so when outcomes are bad, admitting error becomes impossible. Instead of learning, the system doubles down. Plans get stricter, language gets harsher, dissent gets riskier. A good social theory needs to tolerate being wrong and allow peaceful correction. Marxism does the opposite. It treats being wrong as treason to the future. That is why it keeps producing rigidity, fear, and repression even when the original goal was justice.

Well, you are asking the same question, because you're a troll or a bot with month old account. It has been already answered

If they didn't like it, wait for the next election and try to win.

The USSR still bothers people because people like you want it back. Evil bastards.

1. If some random person in the Russia ask for help US or China, can we consider Chinese invasion in Russia legal and justified?

2. Russians invaded Ukrainian Crimea peninsula in February 2014. When exactly "citizens of Crimea" asked for help?

I think you're too far gone. Too much Kremlin propaganda, literally your every comment is false, made up, a lie.

Because it's not a pretext for a full scale.invasion