WI: Karl Marx lived to 1940

The oldest human being lived to be 122. Had Karl Marx, founder of communism, lived that long he would have lived from 1818 to 1940.

What if Karl Marx lived to 1940? How would the world be different with Marx living though World War I, Russian Revolution, and Great Depression.

I think it would be interesting he he wrote a letter to FDR praising the New Deal, same as he wrote to Lincoln praising the Emancipation Proclamation

Butterflies, butterflies. Besides the fact that this is highly unlikely, this would lead to butterflies. He would for instance have had an influence on the later development of socialism and the labour movement. A revolution in a country like Russia went against Marx´ideas, as he assumed that revolution would first happen in the most advanced countries, like Great Britain and the United States.
 
There is no way Carl Marx would be executed in the Soviet Union as he was a legendary figure for Socialists. It's like Soviets executing Lenin.
Accidents happen, Lenin might have actually been poisoned by Stalin. When the game of thrones stuff starts in the Soviet Union anyone without Marx's blessings will want the old man gone.
 
Well the best outcome would be that he lived to 30s and migrated to the Soviet Union, and later he was arrested by the Cheka/OGPU/NKVD and had a trial for ringwing deviations and later executed.

there's no way marx would move to the ussr imo, he would have already had numerous disputes with living Communists in power in the USSR in the early 1900s had he lived

he would have lived in England or Paris imo if forced to flee germany

Why do you say that? Marx likely would have been enthusiastic about the communist revolution, and would more than likely be curious about the new government. No doubt he would be invited by Lenin. Probably wouldn't be so enthusiastic once Stalin took power, though.

I'm not sure why everyone in this thread is assuming that the Soviet Union would ever exist in this timeline or that Lenin would lead it even if it did. In fact, I think a world with a surviving Marx (or Engels for that matter) would be far more likely to not have a Soviet Union in any way we'd recognize it - Marx was clear that Russia was still dominated by feudal relations and that it wasn't ready for lower-stage communism. Furthermore, Marx would have come down like a hammer on Lenin early for his Blanqui-esque vanguardism (if you read Marx, there's little the man held in more contempt than the idea of some "revolutionary" clique conducting the revolution in the name of the people) and imo would have backed communists with tendencies that we'd call Ortho-Marxist in the modern day - Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps. You'd be more likely to see the actual communist revolution in Germany or England than Russia in a Marx Lives TL.
 

Toraach

Banned
I'm not sure why everyone in this thread is assuming that the Soviet Union would ever exist in this timeline or that Lenin would lead it even if it did. In fact, I think a world with a surviving Marx (or Engels for that matter) would be far more likely to not have a Soviet Union in any way we'd recognize it - Marx was clear that Russia was still dominated by feudal relations and that it wasn't ready for lower-stage communism. Furthermore, Marx would have come down like a hammer on Lenin early for his Blanqui-esque vanguardism (if you read Marx, there's little the man held in more contempt than the idea of some "revolutionary" clique conducting the revolution in the name of the people) and imo would have backed communists with tendencies that we'd call Ortho-Marxist in the modern day - Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps. You'd be more likely to see the actual communist revolution in Germany or England than Russia in a Marx Lives TL.
That was not the real communism!

Certainly some half dead 100 years old guy would have much impact into political situation, wars and plots in the country of the far far side of Europe.
 
That was not the real communism!

Certainly some half dead 100 years old guy would have much impact into political situation, wars and plots in the country of the far far side of Europe.

I mean, the development of the ideas that had led to Leninism would be very different (Kautskyism - which Lenin's theory drew from despite Lenin calling Kautsky a renegade - would probably be thoroughy discredited.) Plus, there were already communists who Marx would have agreed with more, even the Soviet Union (see the Worker's Opposition) so it's not like he's be creating something from whole-cloth to throw his esteem behind. If Lenin isn't able to wear the cloak of being the protector of true Marxism from left-wing and right-wing deviations because Marx himself says "nah", he loses a ton of credibility.

I've explained my position pretty thoroughly - why do you think that Leninism (followed by Stalinism) would somehow come to ascendance even with the swarm of butterflies released by a longer-lived Marx?
 
The oldest human being lived to be 122. Had Karl Marx, founder of communism, lived that long he would have lived from 1818 to 1940.

What if Karl Marx lived to 1940? How would the world be different with Marx living though World War I, Russian Revolution, and Great Depression.

I think it would be interesting he he wrote a letter to FDR praising the New Deal, same as he wrote to Lincoln praising the Emancipation Proclamation
It´s hard to predict how he would react to certain social-oeconomic and political developements. His OTL theories have to be seen in the historical context of the 19th Century. The 20th Century industrialization and information technology (telephone etc.) + social and technological dynamics would be completley different from what he experienced during his lifetime.
 
If Marx lived to the age of 96, and denounced the World War as imperialist on both sides, and criticized the Socialists who were "patriotically" backing "their" countries' governments, what would be the effect? I would say, probably none. The social-patriots would just say Marx was old and out of touch. If Marx himself took a "social patriotic" position, "Zimmerwaldists" would say the same thing about him.

Likewise, if Marx lived to 100 and opposed the Bolshevik Revolution (on grounds similar to Plekhanov's) the Bolsheviks would just shrug their shoulders and say he was senile.
 

Wallet

Banned
If Marx lived to the age of 96, and denounced the World War as imperialist on both sides, and criticized the Socialists who were "patriotically" backing "their" countries' governments, what would be the effect? I would say, probably none. The social-patriots would just say Marx was old and out of touch. If Marx himself took a "social patriotic" position, "Zimmerwaldists" would say the same thing about him.

Likewise, if Marx lived to 100 and opposed the Bolshevik Revolution (on grounds similar to Plekhanov's) the Bolsheviks would just shrug their shoulders and say he was senile.
Communists and Socialists denouncing Marx is kinda like Star Wars fans denouncing George Lucas.

Both see their founders as old men and out of touch, even though neither would exist without them.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I don't think Marx would be powerful enough to somehow prevent the USSR altogether, or to have Lenin be cast aside. Those receiving his criticism would just dismiss him as an old man, still stuck in ideas from decades ago, not properly attuned to the modern day. This does not mean Marx wouldn't have any influence at all. I can see him criticising World War I as an evil war, fought at the behest of imperialists, aristocrats and capitalists-- to the detriment of the working classes of all nations. This might help, to some extent, in galvanising the socialists proclaiming just that after the war. As has been suggested in this thread, I can see Marx approving of German socialists like Luxemburg, while denouncing the USSR and the whole idea of an intellectual vanguard forcing a revolution upon a society whose masses are (in Marx's view) not actually ready for it themselves.

An effect of this would be that the whole "that was not real socialism!" excuse gains credibility, compared to OTL. On the other hand, if Marx's support for German socialists is sufficient enough to tip the scales and have their revolution succeed, then his reputation will be tied to the way that turns out. If 'Red Germany' is successful and largely works as Marx predicted, his view is legitimised. It proves, after all, that the excesses of the USSR were indeed due to the fact that russia was not yet fit for socialism. But if socialism becomes, ah, unpleasant in Germany as well, the result would be that the "that was not real socialism!" excuse instead loses its credibility. Because in that case, it'll be obvious that the failure wasn't due to a country "not being ready"-- which implies the failure is instead inherent to socialism.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I'm not sure why everyone in this thread is assuming that the Soviet Union would ever exist in this timeline or that Lenin would lead it even if it did. In fact, I think a world with a surviving Marx (or Engels for that matter) would be far more likely to not have a Soviet Union in any way we'd recognize it - Marx was clear that Russia was still dominated by feudal relations and that it wasn't ready for lower-stage communism. Furthermore, Marx would have come down like a hammer on Lenin early for his Blanqui-esque vanguardism (if you read Marx, there's little the man held in more contempt than the idea of some "revolutionary" clique conducting the revolution in the name of the people) and imo would have backed communists with tendencies that we'd call Ortho-Marxist in the modern day - Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps. You'd be more likely to see the actual communist revolution in Germany or England than Russia in a Marx Lives TL.
otoh you could point out that intellectuals lose control of the movements their ideas created all the time: there's a reason why leninism rose and that's because the revolution Marx foresaw didn't seem to be coming to fruition and attempts to do ferment revolution have failed. There's no particular reason to think once the socialist movements get its balls rolling Marx is going to be able to direct it especially as he gets older and older and he personally becomes less relevant.
 
otoh you could point out that intellectuals lose control of the movements their ideas created all the time: there's a reason why leninism rose and that's because the revolution Marx foresaw didn't seem to be coming to fruition and attempts to do ferment revolution have failed. There's no particular reason to think once the socialist movements get its balls rolling Marx is going to be able to direct it especially as he gets older and older and he personally becomes less relevant.


I think @Skallagrim's take (weaving a middle path behind my original "Marx changes everything" and @Toraach's "Marx changes nothing") is a good one - intellectuals often did lose control of their movements, but the ascendancy of Leninism was far from a sure thing even as late as Red October, when the Left-SRs and left-communist elements of Bolsheviks were still quite powerful. It's not like TTL's Marx would be railing against an inevitability (Trotzky himself notes that "the masses at the moment were more revolutionary than the Party, and the Party more revolutionary than its machine. As early as March the actual attitude of the workers and soldiers had in many cases become stormily apparent, and it was widely at variance with the instructions issued by all the parties, including the Bolsheviks") and the support of communism's father might embolden the left-wing of the Bolsheviks/Left SRs to move against Lenin while they still had the power to do so. Marx living might not poof away the Soviet Union, but as far as the rise of Lenin - which in OTL depended on many things going Vlad's way - Marx could certainly be the just-enough push that sends the Soviet Union down the path of a Left SR - Worker’s Opposition Bolshevik coalition.
 
Top