https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/books/review/victor-sebestyen-lenin-biography.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/books/review/martin-amis-lenin-russian-revolution.html?_r=0
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/247342/sickening-cost-of-lenins-revolution
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/books/review/12-new-books-we-recommend-this-week.html?_r=0
http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/01/communism-turns-100
You are right that the Marxists of the early 20th century can be excused to some degree because the results of Marxist revolution had not been seen at that point. Those who sympathized with arguments like Edmund Burkeโs argument against the French revolution were already opposed to it (as, obviously, were those whose privileges or perks were directly threatened by it) but that line of argument is dense and/or subtle and there are equally dense and subtle arguments against it (in theory), so yes, it is understandable that many good and intelligent people could be tempted by it then, but we expect their descendants to know better now.
This HAS happened to some extent. It is not as widely popular an alternative as it was in the 1930s. But even after it has been repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed, the fact that so many good and intelligent people are STILL tempted by it may have more to do with the fact that it also aligns with some deeply rooted quirks of human nature. i.e. like other religions, it is fated to remain a part of our social life. It appeals to enough of our nobler AND baser instincts to remain an attractive meme; not for everyone. But for enough people. Something like that.
The same could, of course, be said for other persistent ideologies. The rise of a particular ideology to dominance may be contingent, but baseline persistence is more or less guaranteed.
Not a very original observation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/29/100-years-100-million-deaths-later-communism-still-has-converts/
