> If you don't work, you don't eat.

Oh no....

You probably would also call Adam Smith, Ricardo and all classic economists a fraud? Labour Theory of Value is at the core of classical economy, all these authors assumed the theory, Marx did not create it. Marx theory built on top of it, and solved several paradoxes known in the theory at the time.

> Read Marx on the Labour Theory of Value, and watch as he twists the definitions of words until he hits upon the desired outcome.

Yeah, any attempt to ground a normative proposition in objective fact is inherently flawed. But the is/ought distinction and its impact in that regard, while written about at the time Marx wrote, was far from as widely accepted as it would later become at the time (and people of all ideologies still have problems with it today.)

But that doesn't prove Communism is a "deliberate fraud", or even a flawed ideology; at most it proves that Marx's writings on Communism make a fundamental error that mistakes it for an objective scientific fact when it is, in fact, an ideology (the two being in separate domains, but the attempts at constructing objective supports for ideological positions, both backward from an ideology that was assumed to be correct and forward from perceived facts were a systemic misguided pursuit of the philosophy that hadn't really dropped off all that much by the early 19th century.)

> And all of socialism is built about that lie.

No, its not. Socialism is much older than the Marx and the LTV, the LTV was part of an attempt to scientifically ground socialist ideology, as part of a wider systematicization of the ideology.