Every empirical prediction Marx made, failed. The societies based on his teachings led to the greatest human tragedies in the history of mankind. Marx's only relevance is to show the dangers of those who preach the philosophy of the ends justifying the means.

Marx predicted that capital could never be satisfied and was compelled to seek new sources of surplus value in the process of which labour itself would become surplus value and that wages would be consequently be driven down. What we are witnessing right now is the ever-increasing concentration of capital in technology designed to put human beings out of work. The capitalist's dream is a production line which doesn't require human beings at all. Once the stuff of fiction, we're now bearing witness to it in our lifetime. The gig economy is part of the same scenario Marx foresaw which the government euphemistically terms the flexible workforce.

Except Marx was wrong for most of the time after he predicted this as there was a steady rise in wages during most of the 20th century.

Further Marx predicted that the first nations to fall to communism would be the most capitalist ones, but in fact the opposite occurred and the least capitalist countries fell to communism, meanwhile the capitalist countries have not.

That's just one example there are plenty of other others that can be provided, from how is theory of dialectical materialism was wrong on all counts when it came to any scientific power, to history.

In fact the most impressive part of Marx is how truly wrong he managed to be without actually being original as the majority of his work is derivative from Hiegel.

Somehow marxism has always seemed to me a shallow mix of Hegelian dialectic, Feuerbach's materialism, and Aristotelian categories.

Well, he was a student of Hegel's and described his work own work as "turning Hegel on his head". As for the other two it's conceivable these influences may have been formative during his student years.

I love Hegel. Get his complete works and keyword search!

I wish I could better understand dialectic materialism in order to critique it. I can't get around not having a noetic reality that serves like chaotic attractors to materials. Spheres and triangles are just more real than material manifestations. Penrose and Popper proposed similar tripartite realities of, roughly, the material, the conscious and the mathematical.

Indeed, Platonism seems to be a useful mental framework, and separating the three realities from each other helps to keep some degree of sanity when thinking about all these things.