Nope, not going to play that.
Edit:
At this stage, enough so-called "Marxist" governments have descended into slavery, starvation, and mass murder that the burden of proof should lie on those who advocate such governments, and that burden should be heavy indeed.
But nope, it's always "but that wasn't REAL Marxism".
After a century of trying, with dozens of attempts, it is quite clear that either those hellhole governments are "real Marxism" or, conversely, that "real Marxism" does not and cannot exist.
Otherwise someone would've gotten it right by now.
There has been real Marxism, though it's never been absolutely dominant in any society. Particularly, it has been a key driving force in replacing the system of Capitalism that 19th Century socialists identified and critiqued with the substantially different modern mixed economy as the dominant economic form of advanced societies, even though Marxists would claim that as far from a complete success, as the modern mixed economy is far from their desired end state.
Refusing to back up certain or all interpretations of an idea by no means amounts to NTS.
You're making a fallacy by saying that these problems you mention are core to Marxist thought. Modern Marxist philosophers are almost dedicated to finding flaws in 20th century Marxist implementations, and doing research on other models such as anarchism, post-left anarchism and technocracy.
Dismissing this research as "lol no true scotsman, not playing that" is incredibly ignorant and facile.
Nope. I recognize that "Marxist thought" doesn't specifically advocate such things.
Nonetheless, those things always happen.
So far the scorecard is about Murderous Hellhole: 100, Utopia:0.
Usually one only needs to be burned once or twice before deciding that touching a hot stove is a bad idea, even if that glowing burner does look really pretty.
You may be interested in anarchist writers, or Murray Bookchin.
Actually, defenders of capitalism, when confronted with problems attributed to it, frequently argue that the problems are "the State" or "crony capitalism", and that the problems would not exist with "real capitalism".
Of course, both the State and cronyism are features of the system for which the name "capitalism" was coined by its critics, but that doesn't stop the defenders of capitalism for saying that those are separate and opposed things to "real capitalism".
> And it made it common to die, kill and fight wars for money and resources.
That was common long before capitalism.
Where did Marx and Engels write about 100M dead bodies?
Sorry, not seeing your point here.
If Very Bad Things happen every time a particular idea is put into practice, it's a bad idea, regardless of whether the Very Bad Things were explicitly mentioned when the idea was put forth.
More to the point, where did Marx and Engels write about narrow vanguardism instead of broad class consciousness, bypassing capitalism rather than moving forward from it, or any of the other central points of Leninism, which (and not Marxism) is the common ideology shared by the people responsible for those 100 million dead bodies?
The only people trying to put Marxism, rather than Leninism, into effect have been in developed capitalist (and now, in part due to their efforts, post-capitalist mixed) economies.
Sorry, 100 million dead bodies is more than enough to convince me that Marxism doesn't work.