No Commies,Marx is Assasinated in 1800's
- Thread starter Brazilian_Estophile
- Start date
You Say, Socialist, and without Marx, Radical Anarchism, Welsh Styled Socialism and other group would be more popular now
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/688810-uncovered-the-lost-pioneers-of-welsh-socialism , Remember Rebecca Riots? even if more anarchist in natura, was the start of the Welsh Styled Socialism
Like everyone said, there were socialists before and after Marx that had little relation to him. However was anyone else other than Marx and Engels codifying scientific socialism? This was itself a radical departure from utopian socialism and ended up forming the ideological basis for socialist/social democratic parties in Europe in the latter half of the 19th century. Obviously Engels is still around and likely still has some ideas of scientific socialism in his mind, but could he popularize it (or fund someone else as well as Marx to do so)? Scientific socialism not gaining ground would itself create an entirely different direction for the socialist movement-it could go in any number of directions.
Thinking that eliminating Marx destroys communism and the worker movement is like thinking that destroying the clock will stop time. Marx was a product of his time - more of a symptom than the cause - not saying he wasnt important or immensly influential but the situation he was a response to would exist without him and demand a response even if it wasnt him that responded. The situation, living and working conditions of millions of workers in Europe in the 19th century was catastrophic - there was no way that those conditions wont produce a very strong worker movement and an anti-capitalist ideology. Without Marx it might be somewhat different but it will exist and be just as strong.
Well, why are we killing this random man, and who demanded he be killed?
Yeah But Marx and Engels did give some professionalism and historical and scientifical background was a wastershed moment on all leftist movements, without it, Socialist,Anarchist and other leftist movement would evolve very different, another butterfly, Alexander Ullianov might more republican thant communist/socialist, that influence lenin and other leftist too
To build on what Tibi088 stated, I'd add that the development of communication, transportation, and media technologies will also play a role in changing society, and particularly in creating a form of class consciousness. Whether that class pursues socialist, anarchist, or other forms of radical ideology, they will have a sense of being a part of something bigger than themselves, and in need of expression.
Personally, I think that some of the Christian socialist or communalist movements might have greater success. Not to say that Marxism/communism was inevitably atheistic/agnostic, but I just think movements that incorporated religious justifications would have greater potential and appeal. In practice, most communist movements have sought to displace or even destroy religious institutions because of the role those institutions played in reinforcing the existing social order. If socialist movements can work within those systems more successfully, then early forms of social justice may take root.
Personally, I think that some of the Christian socialist or communalist movements might have greater success. Not to say that Marxism/communism was inevitably atheistic/agnostic, but I just think movements that incorporated religious justifications would have greater potential and appeal. In practice, most communist movements have sought to displace or even destroy religious institutions because of the role those institutions played in reinforcing the existing social order. If socialist movements can work within those systems more successfully, then early forms of social justice may take root.
Someone else, possibly Engels, would have ended up lending his name to this form of socialism. People don't drive history in this fashion; remove Marx and someone else would fill the void.
I actually toyed around with a "no Karl Marx" scenario in one of my TLs (sorta; Marx still exists, but he's an economically far-right philosopher that essentially writes a manifesto for plutocracy instead), and I think the overarching result (assuming no one else essentially creates Marxism under a different name and it manages to be equally popular) is that anarchism, or at the very least libertarian socialism, becomes the most prominent form of radical socialism by the start of the 20th Century. Proudhon is likely viewed as a much more influential and relevant socialist than in OTL, and may have a similar effect as Marx in that he could be viewed as the forefather of modern radical socialism. This would also likely mean that the First International never disintegrates due to a split between the anarchists and Marxists, which in the long term could mean that the International is a much more unified and influential force.
The Manifesto of Marx was written in 1848, about the same time faith-based utopian colonies were being established in America, like Zoar, Ohio and Amana, Iowa. Marx was a European Jew, turned atheist, who was sick of being persecuted by anti-Semitism. So he wrote of a system that eliminated religion. Before the Bolsheviks, socialism in America was a labor union movement in 1901. Take religion out of the theory and you don't bring out that deep-seated fear among Americans in the 20th century that persists today.
Hershel/Heinrich Marx, Karl's father, converted to Protestantism. Sure, this still would make Karl an ethnic Jew (although the ethnic aspects of Judaism, while always present, weren't as pronounced then as they are now is some places), but Karl himself never complained about being persecuted by anti-Semitism (his famous "On the Jewish Question" makes no mention of personal persecution and portrays Judaism negatively, although the negative portrayal is then used to accuse the whole society of the same sins).