It can be argued that in the climate of the 19th Century, something like Marxism was inevitable. Somebody was going to look at the injustices caused by early capitalism and try to invent a way to fix it. Whether that ideology would be as utopian as Marxism is another question. Perhaps instead of Marxism, a more pragmatic ideology emerges that advocates wealth redistribution without the state owning the means of production? A sort of quasi-socialism that acknowledges private property but sees the right of caring for the poor and the elderly as more crucial than a worker's paradise?
I could see a movement emerging that decides to care for the disenfranchised, perhaps by making fields more level. I don't necessarily believe it would have been as utopian, and hence prone to authoritarianism as Marxism turned out to be.
It´s possible if you want to make a more positive TL than OTL. Marxism was just one kind of socialism, and in fact there were many others that wanted to end property rights.
Marxism won out possibly because of the Paris Commune, where the Marxists avoided being killed by not participating in the revolutionary activities. (No historical imperative so they staid with hands put) and in the aftermath took over all the underground leftwing activities in the most revolutionary central of Europe thereby spreading all over the world. (I like the theory but my sources aren´t good, it was a radio documentary

).
Anyway, I think you´d get some sort of a revolutionary movement. Mind you even if Bolsheviks win in Russia (not certain), they still might not end up as a stateowned country, the NEP of Lenin privatized things and with no Stalin coming up (a possibility) things might be different.
So yes, idealogically speaking Socialism can take many turns.