Yes, he had mass purges. He also had famines caused by failed agricultural policies. (And he also had famines that seem to have been deliberately killing off groups that he disfavored.)

Claiming that he had mass purges doesn't change the fact that his failed agriculture policies were also deadly.

Tyrannical dictatorships are an emergent property of Marxism. When you stop allocating resources based on competence, and instead based on other factors, whoever gets to decide these factors ends up with all the wealth and power, since they use the factors they have. For instance in intersectionality, minorities want to take from whites under various guises of white privilege and equity, with the anticipated result being they hold all the wealth and power. If you keep narrowing the criteria, you end up with a tyrannical dictatorship. This is opposite of a constitutional democracy where power is decentralized among voters and limited by a Constitution.

> Tyrannical dictatorships are an emergent property of Marxism. When you stop allocating resources based on competence, and instead based on other factors, whoever gets to decide these factors ends up with all the wealth and power, since they use the factors they have. For instance in intersectionality, minorities want to take from whites under various guises of white privilege and equity, with the anticipated result being they hold all the wealth and power. If you keep narrowing the criteria, you end up with a tyrannical dictatorship. This is opposite of a constitutional democracy where power is decentralized among voters and limited by a Constitution.

What is this mythical system that allocates resources based on competence?

The free market?

The free market allocates resources based on competence at the task of acquiring resources, which doesn't always equate to virtuous contribution. I think it works because it gets some utility out of people's greed instead of none, while appeasing the powerful instead of mobilizing their power against it.

The free market allocates resources based on the competence of producing goods and services valued by others using money as the medium of exchange. People get utility from voluntary mutually beneficial transactions that satisfy their needs.

That's the ideal, and you're not wrong, but it ignores the behavioral piece of what really goes on in the world.

I saw what you did there - changed the story to 'virtuous' from 'competence'. I call foul!

Free markets have nothing to do with competence.

They select for members that deliver goods and services at a cost (dollars, convenience, timeliness) acceptable to other members of the market. Which is a 'competence function'.

Capitalism. The problem is that the competencies aren't always socially-beneficial or otherwise desirable ones, e.g. one's competency at scamming others can get rewarded (see, e.g., politicians).

Under capitalism you don't necessarily reward politicians. Politicians get rewarded when the spoils of politics are large, not from market exchanges.

I wish that were true, but the number of politicians whose businesses or children mysteriously get rich is pretty high if you look into that sort of thing.