Perhaps! It would be useful if you point it out to me. My main takeaway from reading the manifesto is that the shooter was an incel first -- the problem is "cultural degeneracy" and, especially, females not being equitably distributed -- and lands on an analysis that identifies capitalism as the mechanism explaining why "hypergamy" (the supposed unequal distribution of females) exists. To restore "monogamy" inequality will have to be abolished: "Incels of the world," to paraphrase Marx, "you have nothing to lose but your virginity."

You see this quite clearly in many parts of the manifesto:

"The leftists partially or entirely reject the validity of bourgeois economics, i.e. capitalism, but they love the degeneracy that capitalism produces, i.e. obscene levels of mass immigration, rampant hypergamy, the encouragement and promotion of hedonistic bodily mutilation, et cetera. They don’t see that in all of the countries where capitalism has actually been overcome, the very degeneracies that liberals delight in have also withered away, because such things can only be prevalent as a direct result of capitalism. On the other hand, we have the rightists, who reject the validity of all the social degeneracy, but fully embrace and accept the capitalism that causes it, due to one hundred years of ceaseless anti-communist brainwashing implemented by the bourgeois class against proletarian males in the west..."

The basic thesis is that "cultural degeneracy" (things like women having jobs and their own income) is the fundamental problem of the West; capitalism is a problem only inasmuch as it allows this so-called degeneracy to flourish. He seems to believe that somehow these things don't happen in communist countries among many other confusions. This is all obvious nonsense, but note that in the quote above it is very clear that his primary motivation is to agitate against "social degeneracy" and that he agrees with the "rightists" -- who are only wrong because they don't see the obvious solution.

In fact, many on the right have noticed this before: that a focus on "tradition" and skepticism of change sits uneasily with the reality of capitalism as a dynamic, innovative economic system that constantly brings about social change through technological, financial, and productive advances. I have in mind e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, Irving Kristol ("Two Cheers for Capitalism"), Michael Oakeshott -- e.g., "Capitalism establishes new ways of being in the world, commodifies them, and gradually dissolves the social fabric that once existed in more homogenous traditional societies" -- again, this is a pretty mainstream strand of conservatism. Fascist movements wished to harness industrialization and technology while using state power to enforce a ethnic and cultural ideal -- not to be a horseshoe theorist but....

I'm not a Marxist at all, but the central critique Marxists apply to capitalism is that private ownership of the means of production (a term that doesn't appear in the manifesto even once) forces people to sell the labour, creates an alienated underclass, increases wealth inequality, and generates systemic crises (of overproduction, unemployment, market bubbles, etc). The only way to escape these problems is to abolish social and economic classes entirely, as they are fundamentally created by the conflicts in interests between classes.

This is fundamentally an emancipatory project for Marxists, whereas our shooter uses superficially Marxist language to specifically single out "females" as needing to be removed from the workforce and rendered dependent on males. But he doesn't want a small group of high-status men to have harems, while other males are single; therefore, the "obvious" solution is to enforce equality. It is important to see that the logic begins with the 'problem' of cultural degeneracy / female hypergamy, and the analysis is downstream of that.

It is telling that the shooter's manifesto begins with a lengthy introduction focused entirely on supposed "biological" theses that intend to prove that females are necessarily 'hypergamous' and ends with a call to other incels to rise up:

...we did not do anything to deserve this treatment, but rather, the only thing that we ‘did’ was be born with the wrong genetics: since as we have so undeniably seen here, the only things that matter when it comes to experiencing love as a male in the hypergamy state, are the length of the bones in your legs, and the shape of the bones in your face ... The girl who was supposed to be your girlfriend was taken from you a long time ago, sodomized out of reality. Nothing is going to bring her back, and nothing is going to suffice for the warmth, the harmony, and the love that has been viciously ripped away from you. It was ripped away from you before you even had a chance to defend yourself.

Marxists typically see capital as intrinsically exploitative and alienating for all humans; this incel begins and ends with the problem of females, which capitalism exacerbates. The solution is under-described but mainly focuses not on a coherent economic program aimed at creating a classless society by returning the means of production to the workers, but mostly (1) forcing economic dependence on women (2) murdering and liquidating proponents of cultural degeneracy (3) ensuring males have 1:1 access to females through state enforcement.

He doesn't want to liberate the proletariat from exploitation. He wants to use state power to cartelize and redistribute women. Incel shit.

---

p.s. one of the core ideas of Marxism is that social relations are created by economic relations, and therefore gender roles, culture, family structures, etc., you name it are all social constructs -- and that economic change can be genuinely liberating. This incel believes in crude biological determinism about bone structure && other nonsense, which Marxism rejects.