Marx didn't invent communism. Someone else's theories will become popular instead.
Well, something similar enough with Lassalle did emerged : but it was actually more economist and would be relatively divorced compared to a possibly more socially minded "Engelsianism" IMO.Are you sure that someone would have eventually come up with the same stuff? Alright but maybe only decades later, and that's a lot of butterflies.
Well, something similar enough with Lassalle did emerged : but it was actually more economist and would be relatively divorced compared to a possibly more socially minded "Engelsianism" IMO.
It was already quite distinct from the marxist approach IOTL, notably on the case of the source of wealth (Lassalle arguing that work was the sole source of wealth, Marx and Engels arguing that rent and land had proper values outside work).
I agree, but I wonder how much without the enormous influence of Marx on post-1850's socialism, Lassallian economics couldn't have more of a systematisation possibility : after all, a lot of specific Lassallian principles did survived into marxist socialism in the XXth, including in USSR and DDR.Nah Lassalle's thinking was nowhere near as comprehensive as Marx's. It was not systematic
I wouldn't dwell too much on the religious side of this precise comment, but I think that while marxism does have an attraction it's rather on what was called "vulgar marxism" in the XXth with a really minimal stress on philosophic part and a basic economist approach of marxist economics. Not in a "not true socialism" perspective, of course, but as what can be observed in marxism development in Europe (safe, maybe, in Germany and not without a certain para-Marxist influence including Lassalle).and we know that it's systems that inspire devotion, commitment and interest from radicals.
I agree, but I wonder how much without the enormous influence of Marx on post-1850's socialism, Lassallian economics couldn't have more of a systematisation possibility : after all, a lot of specific Lassallian principles did survived into marxist socialism in the XXth, including in USSR and DDR.
I wouldn't dwell too much on the religious side of this precise comment, but I think that while marxism does have an attraction it's rather on what was called "vulgar marxism" in the XXth with a really minimal stress on philosophic part and a basic economist approach of marxist economics. Not in a "not true socialism" perspective, of course, but as what can be observed in marxism development in Europe (safe, maybe, in Germany and not without a certain para-Marxist influence including Lassalle).
For instance, marxism was particularly badly understood in France, at least philosophically (to the point Mao's dialectic was considered a reference in the 1940's) and never really got popularized outside a social doctrine.
Conversely, the relative absence of systematisation didn't prevented anarchsim to have been a viable alternative to marxism in several countries before the bolshekiv political success.
A large part of social science development on marxism can be attributed to Engels, that said : a lot of early Marx work is more than vague about this. So I don't think that it would go anywhere if Engels is still alive.That's true I never said his economic thinking wasn't influential, just that he did not link it to history, destiny, that Marx did.
Can't tell if sarcastic or not.Even if the great unwashed masses badly understood Marxism
Only relatively late, and largely thanks to Engels more pragmatical approach : up to the 1870's and essentially as a result of Paris Commune, you didn't have a clearly distinct marxist movement from the whole of socialist (in its broad sense) movement. While Marx was deeply involved in the first Internationale, there wasn't really groups or sub-groups taking him as prime reference. It really emerged with the pre-Second International and the Second Internationale (and even there, diversely so outside Germany, but we can definitely talk about marxist organisation from this point).Marxism allowed for an organizing principle of understanding all things to rally around
A large part of social science development on marxism can be attributed to Engels, that said : a lot of early Marx work is more than vague about this. So I don't think that it would go anywhere if Engels is still alive.
Only relatively late, and largely thanks to Engels more pragmatical approach : up to the 1870's and essentially as a result of Paris Commune, you didn't have a clearly distinct marxist movement from the whole of socialist (in its broad sense) movement. While Marx was deeply involved in the first Internationale, there wasn't really groups or sub-groups taking him as prime reference. It really emerged with the pre-Second International and the Second Internationale (and even there, diversely so outside Germany, but we can definitely talk about marxist organisation from this point).
There would be consequences ITTL about unexistent marxism, but it wouldn't be this obvious on militant organisation before the late XIXth, and while they might be well divided without a core reference, I don't see any clear reason why international organisation (if supple) wouldn't emerge.
The end-of-history (which would be a much more accurate than apocalyptic) approach was rather hegelian more than marxist at its core, and strangely more coming from "young Marx" than "mature Marx", while being fairly present in liberal circles up to nowadays. It might be restricted to Germany and immediate circles, but left-hegelianism wouldn't go anywhere and still have an important influence on German social movement.
The determinist approach, however was much more present in Marx as a constant temptation, and it does seems that in his last decade, Marx returned into a certain determinism in his explanation of social superstructure, partly tempered by his immediate successors. I think most of the issue on this regard comes from the struggle between marxists and revisionists in late XIXth, which was largely made on the philosophical roots of Marxism.
ITTL, you're right that this differenciation might not appear as such, but I think that while the main separation might be between revolutionaries (social neo-jaboines, blanquism, populism, etc.) and "integrationists", the necessity to mend it trough a theoretical corpus that will appear (if less philosophically minded, IMO). So we might have a stress on a direct political intervention, taken from neo-jacobinism, blanquism, populism etc. that would still make revolutionary action having a distinct terrorist (in its political sense) feel.