At their heart, both capitalism and marxism are ideologies describing how things “ought to be.” Proponents of either of them seek to influence political decision making around economic decisions, but neither is/was/will be reality.
No, Marxism does not just describe things as they ought to be. It’s main aspects are:
Anthropological: a methodology for understanding how capitalism happens and how it changes to suit changing conditions (many of which it brings about)
Scientific: a process based ideology for developing an understanding of our local conditions and our ability to change them through sociological investigation, mediated through democratic process
The political program extends from an understanding of those two aspects, and is very variable, because the programs are applied to the local conditions of their environments.
Capitalism postulates that all capital ought to be privately owned and working in individual interest,
No, that strain of bourgeois thought died out as a ruling ideology hundreds of years ago, when state intervention in some failed ventures if the west indies trading company demonstrated that it is more profitable for capitalism to maintain a strong state to protect profits.
Communists dismiss this by pointing out that inequal access to capital causes internal problems in society,
I mean yeah but that’s not the main thing. The main thing that Marxists believe is that as capitalism moves into its monopoly stage, it ceases to be a historically progressive force (in opposition to feudalism) and it starts to be fettered by its own issues, just like feudalism was.
Marxists believe that as production becomes socialized and planned, capitalist control makes these socialized production processes inefficient and ultimately leads to a cycle of crises.
Literally the difference between the holocaust and a pogrom.
A lack of institutional credibility and an unwillingness to read a 20 page report that references things that have already been debunked- for example, i took a vertical slice to dig into, looking in detail about their claims of abducted children that do not align with the reality of later western-biased reporting on the issue.
He describes himself as a “Christian Nationalist” and “on a God given mission to destroy China” and his institute used to be a cia front (arguably still is, although it has now been obscured through another front organization) If he isn’t a fascist, he is close enough to the picture that he still isn’t credible.