Would Darkman be rated PG-13 by today's standards?

Well, if the violence is strong enough, then the R-rating is right on. I haven't seen it yet (I will soon because I love Sam Raimi), so I'll have to get back to you.

Nah there's still a lot of profanity and disturbing scenes.

I think it would just barely get away with an R rating, but to be honest, it's the softer side of R. Yeah, it's violent, but there's a lot of cut aways and what you do see is very stylised and over the top ; very cartoony at times. There's also not that much in terms of swearing (I counted two f-bombs when I watched it again last night), which leads me to believe that maybe they were originally going for a PG: 13, but Rami's vision was too intense. Personally, I find it strange that this is still rated 18 in the U.K! I've seen a lot stronger 15 certificates in recent years.

I never earned a nickel from another man's sweat!

Nah. The standards for R-ratings back then are pretty much the same as they are today. The attitude toward action movies is what changed. Back then studios were more comfortable with R ratings because of all the successful movies in the 80s like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. 1990 hadn't really set a different tone yet. It was a few years later that the PG-13 craze started to begin, but there were still movies here and there like the Matrix movies that walked a similar line as Darkman and also received an R rating.

If you can read this then you are trying too hard.

Although I want to say yes, I can see why it would still get an R rating.

It is pretty dark(no pun), shows stuff like peoples fingers getting cut off, guys getting dipped in acid and general gore. I think that is enough to qualify it. Some intense scenes.

Sure the effects are not that good anymore and some downright awful