I don't think that you can understand Marxism by reading Marx. While I generally would not suggest you color your opinion of someone's work by looking at their life history Marx is an exception.

Marx was a horrible son, husband, friend, employer, employee, and father. He was also racist, financially irresponsible, lazy and egotistical. If you don't know Marx's life history you should check it out.

We can tell my Marx's life that he adhered to a fast life strategy. His life history is interestingly similar to Rousseau's. It tracks that of people like artists who are "in touch with there feelings" and egotistical enough to think that their work is special. It may be a prerequisite for success in fields such as literature. Where it is not useful is in any endeavor that requires management and systemization. It is about form over function.

Humans are a highly dimorphic species. Dimorphic species always run the risk of one sex running away with selection. See intersexual cryptic conflict to understand the biology. When one sex is sufficiently physically stronger than the other the weaker sex will adopt cryptic strategies to compensate. This is the source of a lot of confusion over the conflict between the sexes in humans. It is literally built into the biology.

Male and female humans are not just different physically but psychologically as well. This was something that was widely understood until a few decades ago. It was built into Chinese philosophy as finding a balance between the Yin and the Yang. It was understood that a civilization requires an ecological environment that balanced the interests of both sexes.

We now know from evolutionary psychology that the Yin and the Yang concepts are derived from casual behavioral observations.

In this particular discussion we our concerned about the intersection of sexuality and socialism. The ultimate expression of hypergamy is for females to marry the state and outsource violence or coercion to persuade males to share resources without the downside of being a regular sexual partners. That only 20 percent of all the males that ever lived are represented in the gene pool is evidence that monogamy has not only been rare but also non adaptive. It only became adaptive when civilization created a harsh but stable environment that favored a slow lifestyle. Even within such an environment the problem of dysgenics arises. Females and males both have to be coerced to not follow their instincts and adopt a slow lifestyle. This should be self evident enough that We can set it aside for now and simply acknowledge that for biological reasons socialist redistribution should appeal more to females than males. I believe voting patterns near this out to some extent.

What is less obvious is how social epistasis is amplified to "feminize" a society. Where civilization is less harsh, in the since of males being free to follow their instincts, males tend to be more masculine. This is of course only true if the culture is not highly patriarchal such as with Muslims and traditional Western Cultures. The mouse utopia experiments show what happens when Luxus dominated a society. Males become more feminine and females more masculine and reproductive rates fall. If that society happens to have been patriarchal it will appear to have been "feminize".

The important thing to remember is that these observations are and must be value neutral. There is no other way to remain objective. We can however see how the political system is effected.The

A good example of how society has been feminized is prohibition. Without female suffrage prohibition would never have passed. Since alcohol consumption in quanity was primarily only socially acceptable to a large extent for males it was a male "disease" . Females were not only disincentivised to consume large quantities of alcohol by social norms but by pregnancy, nursing, and child rearing. Males in the other hand were incentivised to consume alcohol by sexual suppression, dull dangerous work, make bonding, and pain from over exertion. The downside for females was drunk exhausted makes tended to beat their wives and squander resources. Not to mention that drunkenness was incompatible with a newly industrial society both for workers and management. The arguments against alcohol were sufficiently persuasive that prohibition was passed.

The problem is of course that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No government it would seem was going to prevent drug abuse. Prohibition shifted violence from the home to the streets and corrupted all levels of government. This is a trend for the feminine predisposition for form over function. We could also look at the big 5 personality traits but for that I recommend Jordan Peterson's lectures. Civilization as it turns out is more about systemization and function than the accoutrements such as art that are a matter of form that are often associated with civilization. A similar problem has arisen with socialist welfare where the feminine predisposition for distribution as opposed to production has corrupted public officials and recipients.

Socialism is a zero sum game unless you’re running it. The elites are the only ones flourishing in a socialist economy. If the millennial socialist in the United States thinks capitalism is unfair and classist, I wonder what they would think in an actual socialist economy that is unfair and classist. Actually, I don’t have to wonder, I know what they’d think. They’d be begging to go back to a capitalist economy where they can get a Starbucks and blog about whatever they want on a MacBook.

Work to change LABELS: Black, White. The NA Indian had it right- PALEFACE, and DARKFACE. As I told some boys of color, the only WHITE man is a DEAD man. They got a chuckle. Although they WERE quite DARK, when I held up a BLACK T shirt to their skin, the red glow, or sometimes purple glow was easy to see.
These terms provoke, probably like LEFT and RIGHT.

Get to REAL color, we are then just a smaller distance.
So MUCH racism, both sides. Unable to cope with differences.

I am not 8ntending to put colored people down when I saw some are better in Africa? Cultural dissonance. Some fit well, do very well, are a BIG plus.
Many are just lost. Anyone would be if displaced.

Let's get better, new terms. I really HATE the word 'su*I'm but that's the term for those ugly words.

Divide society into groups, convince said groups they're all victims of the others! , agitate to point of civil collapse, blame encumbered govt! , Play the great saviour, usurp power then cement position! How far along this road is your home?