It depends on what ideas you deem to be "correct". He was very good at elucidation of the nature of how European models of property rights were impacting large swaths of the population at large... But its difficult to say if he had everything figured out because his "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't seem to ever actualize in a lasting fashion. It usually ends up as an authoritarian state arguably because the system is vulnerable to the first group that decides to break faith with the covenant. A lot of Communist hopefuls tend to either take the examples of this happening as "not true Communism" or try to minimize the bad aspects of regimes that adopted the principles... It does seem once power is too laterally spread it becomes weak to any hierarchy that as long as they can talk a good game and use Marxist language.

In either case a lot of us would not call those outcomes "proven correct". I would say he had some very lasting ideas which are useful tools... But the fact that none of the places where attempted enactment have particularly lived up to his hype means that like a lot of philosophy of his time that the answers are a lot more complex and nuanced than he could have forseen.

They’re gonna screenshot this and circle-jerk all over it. I guarantee it. Because that’s all they do. They’re not interested in actually implementing incremental steps toward socialism, and also not interested in growing the left so that a revolution is possible. So they’re just miserable little fucks who shit on everyone who’s not a bloodthirsty tyrant.

It really is a hype based philosophy. I look at Marx as a bit of a stochastic terrorist of his time. His ideas aren't dangerous particularly taken with a grain of salt but because they are written to lead one to become angrier and angrier without being given an outlet to work towards things on a constructive way Communist communities start hopeful and sour over time.

He always dances around how that limiting of other classes authority and individual inequities is going to be handled because the answer... Is violence. A generous read is that he is naive to believe everyone will see he's right and kumbaya the whole thing into existence but more likely because of the language he uses other places he's flat out for the nessisary purge required to achieve his aims.

Issue being is anarchic mobs are generally fairly weak... So to make a successful change you basically need paramilitary leaderships and military like heirachy to achieve that purge... And then so far in history that paramilitary heirachy never has effectively dissolved after the fact because if everybody is doing communism correctly creating competeting heirachy is antithetical... You are just supposed to ignore that the paramilitary heirachy that becomes the state isn't strictly playing by Marx's rules either but by then a population isn't in a position to argue.