WI no Karl Marx

[A Random Person]

Would communism exist without him?

How would the world look without revolutions, would there be elitism as he predicted IOTL?

[XNM]

Probably not communism as we know it. But anarcho-communism already existed as a philosophy.

Perhaps Proudhon comes to be more well-known and influential? I'd imagine in such a case that anarchism may become the principal ideology of the far-left, as opposed to Marxist communism.

[wolf_brother]

Considering that Engels largley wrote The Communist Manifesto IOTL I think 'no Marx' will have even less of an impact than you might realize.

Also as MKN points out even without both Marx and Engels there would still be plenty of socialist writers, theorists and activists in the period. Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Thomas Hodgskin, Louis Blanc, Moses Hess, Mikhail Bakunin, Ferdinand Lassalle, William Morris, Mary Harris Jones, and Peter Kropotkin were all contemporaries of Marx and Engels, and all very prominent socialist aggregators and writers.

[Hobbesian]

I think Marx's (Marx' ?) Hegelian background directly influenced his 'materialist view of history' (rigidly reformulated as 'historical materialism' by Plekhanov) as being a historical theory that has an inevitable end. As Karl's own Marxism gave way to Orthodox Marxism, the inevitability of the revolution and the era of communism (not state socialism but an era of abundance, classlessness and no private property) became accepted Truths; any doubts about it were labeled 'revisionist' and dismissed. While Karl would weep at the sight of Marxism as understood by the soviets, his notion of the inevitable dialectic end point was ripe for distortion.

Now, this is important because it led to a certain laxity when it came to bringing about the communist End of History, since, you know, it was inevitable anyways. Without Marx, I can see *Trotskyism gaining power, as spreading the revolution would be as important as maintaining it in post-revolutionary societies. I can see the likes of Kautsky and Gramsci becoming influential.

Moreover, Marx heavily emphasized the Paris Commune as the prototype of the Proletarian Revolution. If another theorist (or theorists) becomes the flagbearers of the workers' movement, you could have other moments in history to serve as examples. Through this different choice of a precedent you could have other groups, like the syndicalists or anarchists claiming to be the rightful successors of 1848 (or whenever).

Thus, if the workers' movement (which i think is pretty inevitable after a no Marx POD, given the social and economic pressures) takes on a different character, say, a democratic one (remember that the Soviets scoffed at democracy under the guise of being a truly Marxist 'dictatorship of the proletariat), I can see them becoming a more 'legitimate' political force, rather than a fringe movement in Western Europe. Think UK Labour but a bit more to the left - not just asking for workers' rights but also their holding power over other segments of society, though not through eradicating the bourgeoisie. Moreover, you probably wouldn't have the modern family unit and the nation as sinister inventions of the bourgeoisie, which i think alienated potential allies. You would have an interesting idea of internationalism ("our differences only add to our power and brotherhood"). Equality between the sexes would still be a strong force, since the idea was already around for a long time when Marx endorsed it (Wollstonecraft, J.S. Mill). Depending on who takes the helm (i.e. not Proudhon & co), socialists can even be OK with private property which could butterfly collectivization (millions not dying!).

While this would help them gain some ground in Western Europe, it would also deprive Nazis (if they or their analogues exists) of the red bogeyman. Same goes for the Red Scare in USA and Canada. Not necessarily butterfly nationalists' and capitalists' animosity towards the socialists but at least deprive them of some legitimacy. Not sure about what effects this would have though.

In fact, I've always thought of Marx as a tragic figure due to fact that his making 'prophecies' might actually have made them impossible to get realized. A self-falsifying prophecy, if you will. In a world without Marx, the Left can actually be stronger.

[Lightman]

Anti-liberal socialism might not exist. Liberal, or utopian, socialism was already existed and would probably continue to do so.

I think Marx's (Marx' ?) Hegelian background directly influenced his 'materialist view of history' (rigidly reformulated as 'historical materialism' by Plekhanov) as being a historical theory that has an inevitable end. As Karl's own Marxism gave way to Orthodox Marxism, the inevitability of the revolution and the era of communism (not state socialism but an era of abundance, classlessness and no private property) became accepted Truths; any doubts about it were labeled 'revisionist' and dismissed. While Karl would weep at the sight of Marxism as understood by the soviets, his notion of the inevitable dialectic end point was ripe for distortion.

This is inaccurate; Marx did not believe in a teleological historical dialectical; that is one of the main differences between historical materialism and Hegelianism. Marx did believe that the options for civilization were communism or collapse, but to my knowledge he never predicted the revolution as inevitable.

[Jello_Biafra]

I could see William Morris developing something very similar to Marx's materialist conception of history. William Morris may not have had the same rigor to his philosophy as Marx did, but he very much independently came to the same conclusions. Morris's communism is very similar to Marx's, particularly the Civil War in France/Critique of the Gotha Programme era. In a world without Marx or Engels to serve as the intellectual centers appropriated by the German Lasalleans, Morris just might be the man the ultra-left gravitated to.

Unlike Bakunin, he had the advantage of avoiding highly polarizing terms like anarchism (even though I would consider Morris' communism to be more libertarian than Bakunin--Bakunin had some internal consistency problems), as well as avoiding Bakunin's penchant for violent conspiratorialism as well as anti-semitism.

[Rex Mundi]

Originally Posted by Lightman

Anti-liberal socialism might not exist. Liberal, or utopian, socialism was already existed and would probably continue to do so.

This is inaccurate; Marx did not believe in a teleological historical dialectical; that is one of the main differences between historical materialism and Hegelianism. Marx did believe that the options for civilization were communism or collapse, but to my knowledge he never predicted the revolution as inevitable.

"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." - The Communist Manifesto

This seems to indicate rather clearly that he felt a proletarian revolution to be inevitable, unless I'm interpreting something incorrectly.

[Lightman]

Originally Posted by Rex Mundi

"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." - The Communist Manifesto

This seems to indicate rather clearly that he felt a proletarian revolution to be inevitable, unless I'm interpreting something incorrectly.

You are relying on a political manifesto whereas, in my understanding (and I do not purport to be an expert on Marxism), Marx's theoretical work did not agree with that sentiment. I've had it explained to me that one of the crucial theoretical differences between Marxism and Hegelianism is that Marxism lacks a telos. I could be wrong, of course.

[Derek Jackson]

Absent Marx might far left groups be more likely to have religious dimentsion. I do not know the consequences of this

[Earl_of_Somerset]

No Karl Marx?

I wonder if Communism ( if it arises ) gets a new name?

[SavoyTruffle]

It would not be Marxism, but Engelism

[Hobbesian]

Originally Posted by Lightman

You are relying on a political manifesto whereas, in my understanding (and I do not purport to be an expert on Marxism), Marx's theoretical work did not agree with that sentiment. I've had it explained to me that one of the crucial theoretical differences between Marxism and Hegelianism is that Marxism lacks a telos. I could be wrong, of course.

You are correct, Marx did try to distance himself from Hegel's teleological view of history. However, as the structure of his "materialist conception of history" closely follows Hegel's dialectic; the contradictions of the previous epoch give birth to the next one. Instead of applying it to the realm of ideas, Marx 'turns hegel on his head' and applies the dialectic to material conditions of human existence, namely the means and mode of production. Thus, while Hegel's story is about the Spirit (or world-spirit; like a national spirit -think Brittannia- but one that encompasses the whole world) reaching self-actualization, for Marx (at least in my reading, heavily influenced by G.A. Cohen, the "analytic marxist") it is the story of human labour (both the act and the class) achieving self-actualization through shedding oppression (or "alienation" for Early Marx) via the praxis (revolutionary action).

Now, when we have such a picture, it is true that Marx's conception of the end-point (the self-actualization) in not inevitable in the sense that Hegel's is (since the latter seems to be invoking some quasi-religious themes). After all, a meteor can kill us all before the Revolution. However, Marx's theory shows us the logical conclusion of the current state of affairs. It is a physical inevitably only when we add a ceteris paribus clause ("all things being equal"). Compare a scientific prediction about a pot of water boiling at sea level, at 100 degrees celcius. We would expect the prediction to come true, but only with a ceteris paribus clause: a certain pot of water can fail to boil at that temperature if, say, the wind blew some foreign particles into it. Similarly Marx presents a "scientific" theory that presupposes some ideal conditions. Marx's predictions are inevitable if and only if the conditions of late 19th century (extreme capitalism) remain as they are.

Yet, unexpected fuctors like the incredible expansion of the service sector and the white collar army (who are neither bourgeoisie nor proletariat in the proper sense of the terms), the exponential development of technologies that, while stealing some jobs (manual labor) also created new occupations (IT guys, web designers etc) and of course, events like the world wars, formation of the united nations, strenghtening of workers' rights through democratic (non-revolutionary) ways mean that the ceteris paribus clause is violated, all things have not stayed equal.

In any case, Marx's "materialist conception of history" is inevitable only in a conditional sense. When his theory was distorted into "historical materialism" by others who treated Marx's writings as the immutable scripture which cannot be revised did "marxists" (read soviets) came to think of the universal communist society as a logical inevitability. Again, the Hegelian structure of Marx's theory did play a part in this distortion. That's why I think that without Marx, workers' paradise could become a goal that has to be fought for, meaning that the flagbearers of *communism would be more concerned about spreading the revolution.

As for "if no marx then engels", I doubt that Engels would have Marx's influence on his own; he lacked the theoretical depth and rhetorical flair that Marx had. At most, he would be a prominent figure among others, resulting in a more pluralistic theoretical basiss for *communism.

P.S. I tried to present my views in the most accessible way I could, sorry if I sound like I'm talking to a kid

[EnglishCanuck]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

Absent Marx might far left groups be more likely to have religious dimentsion. I do not know the consequences of this

It would probably be some Protestant sect that purports an anti-Catholic stance. Though I'm having trouble picturing any religious group besides Christian Protestants taking to it whole heartedly.

[Rex Mundi]

Originally Posted by Hobbesian

You are correct, Marx did try to distance himself from Hegel's teleological view of history. However, as the structure of his "materialist conception of history" closely follows Hegel's dialectic; the contradictions of the previous epoch give birth to the next one. Instead of applying it to the realm of ideas, Marx 'turns hegel on his head' and applies the dialectic to material conditions of human existence, namely the means and mode of production. Thus, while Hegel's story is about the Spirit (or world-spirit; like a national spirit -think Brittannia- but one that encompasses the whole world) reaching self-actualization, for Marx (at least in my reading, heavily influenced by G.A. Cohen, the "analytic marxist") it is the story of human labour (both the act and the class) achieving self-actualization through shedding oppression (or "alienation" for Early Marx) via the praxis (revolutionary action).

Now, when we have such a picture, it is true that Marx's conception of the end-point (the self-actualization) in not inevitable in the sense that Hegel's is (since the latter seems to be invoking some quasi-religious themes). After all, a meteor can kill us all before the Revolution. However, Marx's theory shows us the logical conclusion of the current state of affairs. It is a physical inevitably only when we add a ceteris paribus clause ("all things being equal"). Compare a scientific prediction about a pot of water boiling at sea level, at 100 degrees celcius. We would expect the prediction to come true, but only with a ceteris paribus clause: a certain pot of water can fail to boil at that temperature if, say, the wind blew some foreign particles into it. Similarly Marx presents a "scientific" theory that presupposes some ideal conditions. Marx's predictions are inevitable if and only if the conditions of late 19th century (extreme capitalism) remain as they are.

Yet, unexpected fuctors like the incredible expansion of the service sector and the white collar army (who are neither bourgeoisie nor proletariat in the proper sense of the terms), the exponential development of technologies that, while stealing some jobs (manual labor) also created new occupations (IT guys, web designers etc) and of course, events like the world wars, formation of the united nations, strenghtening of workers' rights through democratic (non-revolutionary) ways mean that the ceteris paribus clause is violated, all things have not stayed equal.

In any case, Marx's "materialist conception of history" is inevitable only in a conditional sense. When his theory was distorted into "historical materialism" by others who treated Marx's writings as the immutable scripture which cannot be revised did "marxists" (read soviets) came to think of the universal communist society as a logical inevitability. Again, the Hegelian structure of Marx's theory did play a part in this distortion. That's why I think that without Marx, workers' paradise could become a goal that has to be fought for, meaning that the flagbearers of *communism would be more concerned about spreading the revolution.

As for "if no marx then engels", I doubt that Engels would have Marx's influence on his own; he lacked the theoretical depth and rhetorical flair that Marx had. At most, he would be a prominent figure among others, resulting in a more pluralistic theoretical basiss for *communism.

P.S. I tried to present my views in the most accessible way I could, sorry if I sound like I'm talking to a kid

In essence, there seems to be a discrepancy in the way the word "inevitable" is being applied (i.e., bound to happen given a certain circumstance, just as water is bound to boil at 100 Celsius without contaminants to raise the boiling point, as opposed to literally inevitable in some physical sense). I'm willing to concede a disagreement founded on semantics. I'm also purposely not discussing Hegel; although I'm familiar with the broad strokes of Hegelianism and its impact on philosophers like Marx, I've only just started reading his work for myself and I don't want to misrepresent him.

Edit: To stay on topic, I think that Europe in the absence of Marx would still have given birth to a radical form of egalitarianism/collectivism, as these ideas existed before him. A lot depends on which figure (if any) would have been the one to develop a concrete political agenda that advances the proletariat, and which nation if any would have been the first to adopt or distort his views. I don't think that Engelsism(?) could have been been as prominent without Marx's sheer charisma as an essayist, and Proudhon, whom I deeply admire, seems a tad too inconsistent with his aims for society for his followers to attain the same level of cohesion as the Marxists did OTL.

[Rex Mundi]

On the other hand, a timeline with Proudhon as the foremost revolutionary of the 'left' sounds too good to pass on.

[snerfuplz]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

Absent Marx might far left groups be more likely to have religious dimentsion. I do not know the consequences of this

It is a possibility but liberalism itself was very anti-religion in some areas and I can see left-wing ideologies following a similar path even without Marx.

[Roger II]

Originally Posted by Hobbesian

self-actualization through shedding oppression (or "alienation" for Early Marx) via the praxis (revolutionary action).

I'm actually not sure about the equivalence you present between oppression and alienation, since alienation seems to be presented specifically as a category that makes productive activity of any kind possible. Could you elaborate on this a little?

[The Ubbergeek]

Originally Posted by snerfuplz

It is a possibility but liberalism itself was very anti-religion in some areas and I can see left-wing ideologies following a similar path even without Marx.

Now, there is a difference between antiCLERICALISM and anti-religious. The earlier is more common, and not uncompactible with spirituality... You have by example the Orthodoxe christian(?) Tolstoi and his Christian.. Anarchism.

[Hobbesian]

Originally Posted by Roger II

I'm actually not sure about the equivalence you present between oppression and alienation, since alienation seems to be presented specifically as a category that makes productive activity of any kind possible. Could you elaborate on this a little?

I should have went with 'exploitation' rather than 'alienation'. "Young" or Early Marx utilizes various meanings for the term 'alienation' (see http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s3002.htm for 4 different types of alienation). In Late Marx alienation is absent, but we have 'exploitation' instead, which is the character of the mode of production wherein the worker has no ownership over the means of production or the product itself due to the nature of the relations of production. Moreover, the labour theory of value entails slave labour as an inherent aspect of profit, which contributes to the exploitative aspect of the mode of production. So i guess alienation encapsulates some early form of the idea of exploitation but also includes the sociological or psychological conditions of the exploited worker.

In any case, my point was that revolutionary action would presumably relieve the worker from both the alienation and the exploitation that he experiences under the capitalist system.

@Rex Mundi aye, I my understanding of Hegel is sketchy at best (then again who REALLY understands what he's on about anyways?) but my understanding is based on some passing acquaintance from uni and, again, G.A. Cohen's "Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence".

back to the original topic, I don't see anarchism (proudhon's or anybody else's) being a viable state ideology in the long term (which would kinda be a contradiction). If there is an anarchist "community" of some sort, especially late 19th or early to mid 20th centuries, I bet that a neighboring centralized state will gobble them up the first chance they get. I'd rather count on the trade unionists & social democrats to become the dominant force on the left. Without the marxist revolutionary bogeyman who is against the church, family, nation-state and private property, i think that the democratic left will have more breathing space in industrialized nations.

Also: no marxism = less iconic facial hair

[Wendell]

The world might be slightly better without Marx, but it's hard to know without fully considering the ramifications and consequences of his life as he led it in our timeline.