[dragonwriter]

> My explanation eventually leads back to Marxism and destruction of the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency which form the core of Enlightenment Western civilization

As Marx himself pointed out, it is capitalism which, by reducing the working class which composes the greatest part of society to consumables in the system of production, destroys the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency of the society in which the Enlightenment emerged, and the capitalist habit of blaming opponents of capitalism for that is a diversionary tactic.

[Klwohu]

Capitalism is entirely a concept within Marxism and doesn't exist outside that particular philosophy. Maybe that's why Marxists have reached total penetration and are having difficulty converting new useful idiots. Most people wised up to the re-definition of language and the predominance of neologisms and tuned it all out.

[dragonwriter]

> Capitalism is entirely a concept within Marxism and doesn’t exist outside that particular philosophy.

The conversion of the means of production from appurtenances to land that was usually held as entailments to independent marketably property held in fee simple (along with land itself being converted from entailments to fee simple ownership) driven by pressure from and to the benefit of the burgeoning mercantile class is, like, a real thing that happened. The idea that capitalism exists only as a concept within Marxism is novel, but not even popular among anti-Marxists.

> Maybe that’s why Marxists have reached total penetration and are having difficulty converting new useful idiots.

Marxism was a reaction to the particular situation in the dominant economies of the West in the late 19th Century, and played a powerful role in shaping the reform of those economies that occurred in the early-mid-20th Century and essentially completely replaced the system that Marxism reacted to. While the dominant system of the developed world is still sometimes called “capitalism” (though others distinguish it as “welfare statism”, “the modern mixed economy” and shares some key characteristics of the earlier system, it is also radically different.

Marxism is part of the background of a lot of modern movements most of whose members wouldn’t describe themselves as Marxist because they are working from a different point and responding to different problems.

> Most people wised up to the re-definition of language and the predominance of neologisms and tuned it all out.

Yeah, I don’t think “re-definition of language and […] neologisms” have ever been a particular problem for Marxists; all systems which give importance to distinctions that have not otherwise been considered import either create new language or use existing language in special ways, and many of them are quite successful.

[denton-scratch]

Oh, for goodness' sake. You are ill-informed. Your own President, as well as his predecessor, have both spoken publicly about the marvels of Capitalism. Are they both Marxists? Was it their marxist indoctrination that made them think Capitalism is a thing?