I don't think Marx always intended revolution and the term changed context later in his life, when reformation and revolution were distilled as two separate approaches. In my opinion this is still a fault line in modern leftist movements.

Capitalism rewards the vicious rentseeker and punishes the virtuous worker.

Any transfer of wealth towards weaker member of society is forbidden? Should we let babies starve, after all they don't literally pull their own weigth? What about disabled people?

Capitalism rewards workers according to the utility of their contribution. Consider Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc.

Rentseekers in the literal sense (landlords) are not that big of a function of the economy. Rentseekers in the figurative sense (companies that use regulatory capture to extract wealth from others) are not a feature of capitalism, they are a feature of a mixed economy.

This is completely wrong. Marxism is presented as "scientific socialism" compared with former idealist versions that proliferated in the 1800s. While you can disagree with his conclusions, Marx presents a theory of class society, of the development of productive forces, and how these interact to advance the political forms of society which ends in revolution when the old structures and the new engines of society clash. He doesn't really go deeply into what "socialism" would look like, only that the clash between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, where the proletariat both massively outnumber the bourgeoisie and do all the work for survival wages presents a contradiction that will be resolved.

Your post side-steps the issue I raised.

I think their point was that when you said “Marxism rewards the vicious and punishes the virtuous“, what you said could make sense when talking about Marx-inspired ideologies / movements (the USSR, etc), but not so much about the actual writings and thought of Karl Marx himself.

I.e. that Marxist scholarship / thought does not have a one to one correspondence with Marxist-inspired social or political movements, of which there are many different kinds.

But the real question is why am I wasting my time on the internet writing this when the odds of you yourself wishing to step back and hear with open ears what I’m suggesting is quite low?

Which isn’t so much a statement about you, dear debate-opponent, as it is about the internet itself.

Getting people to waste time online - the capitalists greatest tool in the repression of the masses! LOL ;)

Maybe we’ll get immortalized in the Internet Archive ;););)

I think my statement applies, or at least is likely to apply, under any implementation of Marx's ideas, and also has applied under every implementation that has been tried. If someone has a real counterpoint to that I'd be happy to hear it and engage with it.

I'm still kind of talking past the other person, and vice versa, but it's hard to have a good conversation about this, and I think it's important to say something to express my opposition to Marxism (though that's debatable---if nothing good/useful can be said, it's very debatable).

I would not have said anything on most discussion forums, but if there ever was a place where it's appropriate to speak up against Marxism when it rears its head, YC News is it. I think I can voice my pro-capitalist position politely and it's OK here, even if there is no traction in the conversation. I wouldn't do that on, say, reddit; I think it would be rude in that context, unless I can actually foster a meaningful conversation.

> the odds of you yourself wishing to step back and hear with open ears what I’m suggesting is quite low

Valid statement about the Internet in general, but culture can change, and we should strive to be better than that. In my own commenting history there are certainly bright and dark spots. I try to do the best I can.