This is one of those articles that is hard to debunk because of the sheer amount of things it gets wrong about Marxism.
The historical takes are nonsense. The 100 million deaths thing has been debunked a thousand times elsewhere, the main points being that it includes ridiculous things like nazis killed in the invasion of the Soviet Union, and that it is never compared to the same metric under capitalism, where 10 million people die each year due to food insecurity, adding up to that 100 million number each decade, while being a lot more direct consequence of capitalism than those deaths were of communism. The "natural experiments" all compare a historically richer country to a historically poorer one, or one that was bombed to shit by the USA.
The article claims that the Marxist class is a consequence of LTV, which demonstrates that it has no understanding of marxism. If anything, LTV is a tool used to examine the contradiction between classes, which is the opposite of what is claimed by the article. For example, it seems to claim that Marxist think state arises from "surplus", instead of class contradictions. I bet it's easy to argue against a position when you can just invent what they believe with no regard to reality. They also repeatedly confuse surplus with surplus value.
The article then goes on to demonstrate its complete misunderstanding of Marx's Value, just read the first three chapters of Capital, anyone, please.
This is one of those articles that is hard to debunk because of the sheer amount of things it gets wrong about Marxism.
The historical takes are nonsense. The 100 million deaths thing has been debunked a thousand times elsewhere, the main points being that it includes ridiculous things like nazis killed in the invasion of the Soviet Union, and that it is never compared to the same metric under capitalism, where 10 million people die each year due to food insecurity, adding up to that 100 million number each decade, while being a lot more direct consequence of capitalism than those deaths were of communism. The "natural experiments" all compare a historically richer country to a historically poorer one, or one that was bombed to shit by the USA.
The article claims that the Marxist class is a consequence of LTV, which demonstrates that it has no understanding of marxism. If anything, LTV is a tool used to examine the contradiction between classes, which is the opposite of what is claimed by the article. For example, it seems to claim that Marxist think state arises from "surplus", instead of class contradictions. I bet it's easy to argue against a position when you can just invent what they believe with no regard to reality. They also repeatedly confuse surplus with surplus value.
The article then goes on to demonstrate its complete misunderstanding of Marx's Value, just read the first three chapters of Capital, anyone, please.