What was Marx's mistake that led him to create an ideology that ended up in mass murder?

What was Marx's mistake that led him to create an ideology that ended up in mass murder?

Did he forget about human nature?

Which ideology doesn't end up in mass murder?

Anti-murderism

mass murder is human nature though

Materialism and universalism.

He didn't make a mistake. He knew exactly what he was doing. Only useful idiots who fall for it for reasons other than to subvert and destroy goyish societies make "mistakes".

It's cute to think that beardy guy is some wicked anti-Santa who fucked everything up, but economic and social forces were at work to make the 20th century pretty rocky anyway. If not Marx & Engels, maybe Zola, or Sinclair or Steinbeck, etc. etc.

Back to /pol/

It's far too easy to turn into a totalitarian dictatorship

He isn't guilty of the events of the 20th century but:
1) He failed to see how his fatalism might be used to justify nihilistic rage 2)His refusal to give a concrete picture of what the transitory state might look like lead people to assume it would be a top down centrally planned economy (which could only function like a prison barracks). 3) He did not realize the abolition of classes would not preclude other social hierarchies.

>murder cannot be avoided until everyone is dead
>the end justifies the means
>kill everyone so murder can be avoided

Adam Smith is the reason the Thermidor happened

1. He had a limited lifespan and couldn't refine and update his works
2. He couldn't prevent Lenin from coming into existence

>2)His refusal to give a concrete picture of what the transitory state might look like lead people to assume it would be a top down centrally planned economy (which could only function like a prison barracks).
Because he didn't know. He was trying to extrapolate historical trends into the future.

>3) He did not realize the abolition of classes would not preclude other social hierarchies.
Marx isn't anti-hierarchy. Your top down centrally planned economies had hierarchies, for obvious reasons. He targeted a specific form of class hierarchy.

>He couldn't prevent Lenin from coming into existence
Kautskyite wrecker detected

>human nature
Disgusting platitude.

>Did he forget about human nature

>Because he didn't know. He was trying to extrapolate historical trends into the future.

Not trying to fault him. That was indeed a historical limitation but it's worth noting.

>Marx isn't anti-hierarchy. Your top down centrally planned economies had hierarchies, for obvious reasons. He targeted a specific form of class hierarchy.

My point being that he did not see that a caste/state-capitalist directory might arise like in the USSR under Stalin.

> reddital reddacy
not an argument

Marxism was just a more Jewy/resentment-based pleb interpretation of Hegelianism desu

Saying something is Reddit isn't an argument

Justifying your views as "Human Nature" isn't an argument

> human nature doesn't exist
way to go reddit, to point out that human nature matters is not the same as committing a natural fallacy

Nice read comprehension, friendo ;:^)

Define human nature and prove it exists.

Literally every ideology claims to be representative of human nature. Locke and Hobbes both talked about the state of nature of for example. Unless you go into what you think human nature is it's not an argument.

>logic is valid because i said it is