WI Marx was killed in 1836

In 1836 while studying in university he became involved in a duel (this really happened). Let's say the duel kills him. How would subsequent world history change? How influential would Engels alone have been? Would anyone else have formulated similar theories as Marx?
 
Last edited:
In one hand, militant socialism might have an harder time emerging from radical republicanism in Europe, while philosophical socialism would be rather mixed into intellectual currents either upotist either diffusionists (like Proudhon's).
In an other hand, Engels being allowed to focus more on theoritical work, due to an absence to support Marx financially, might make "scientific socialism" a bit less economist (while neither Marx or Engels were rally such, but it was quickly evolving into this by the 1860's in part of the socialist movemtnt) and more broadly supported on social science earlier than IOTL.
Maybe a more early hand down socialism too, mix of what remains of babouvism and new approaches. But a more board and pragmatical approach without the heavily influential philosohical side of marxism might meant a less coherent movement overall.
 
Marx didn't invent communism. Someone else's theories will become popular instead.

C'mon you know better than that. Even if he didn't invent it, his theories were tremendously influential in shaping the ideology and its method of thinking. Think about his works, imagine no Das Kapital and German Ideology. Imagine no Marxist economic theories. 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.
 
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).
 
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).

Nah Lassalle's thinking was nowhere near as comprehensive as Marx's. It was not systematic, and we know that it's systems that inspire devotion, commitment and interest from radicals. Too narrowly focused on economics, no focus on laws of history, materialism, human societies ect.
 
Nah Lassalle's thinking was nowhere near as comprehensive as Marx's. It was not systematic
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.

and we know that it's systems that inspire devotion, commitment and interest from radicals.
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.
 
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.

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. That makes him influential in economic circles but if anything I believe without Marx's systematisation, his thinking would be even more narrow. After all Marx inspired a whole generation of continental philosophers to develop their own systematic approaches.

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.

Even if the great unwashed masses badly understood Marxism, their thought leaders did not. Marxism allowed for an organizing principle of understanding all things to rally around, and without it you would have fringe groups who could never successfully mount a revolution, not to mention run a state. Revolutions depend upon key intellectuals, Lenin, for example to lead and organize them. Without inspiration for these key intellectuals and thought leaders, Communism isn't as influential.
 
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.
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.

Even if the great unwashed masses badly understood Marxism
Can't tell if sarcastic or not.

Marxism allowed for an organizing principle of understanding all things to rally around
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.
 
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.

I'm not talking about social science development of Marxism. I'm talking about the deterministic, apocalyptical, nature of Marxism itself. Let's say Marx doesn't exist, Engels joins the Communist Party. Does he thus express the apocalyptic principles of Communist in connection with social and economic science? I think he would just focus on the social science and thus Communism becomes a more disciplined, empirical school of thought. One where the two trains of thinking (apocalyptic, scientific) are not synthesized without Marx's influence. But without this synthesis, radicals are not interested. There will still be radicals but they will be like the 19th century radicals even into the 20th century. They will either not succeed in running a state, or they will run a state according to more conventional approaches.

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.

Yes my point is that without the unified frame of Marxism, 20th century revolutions resemble 19th century ones. Even if radicals succeed in revolution, either they run the state in a more conventional way or they collapse with infighting and opposition. Without the anchor of Marx's systematic thought, they have much less to unify around and provide them with political legitimacy.
 
Last edited:
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 blanquism, populism etc. that would still make revolutionary action having a distinct terrorist (in its political sense) feel.

Now this would probably come in opposition not only to non-revolutionary socialism, but to the more institutional minded social republicanism as it appeared IOTL either in France or Spain in early XIXth, while the difference was (only partially) mended in the late XIXth and mid XXth century.
 
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.

Yes but this left-hegelianism would not be fused with economic theory and social sciences. What made Marxism so appealing was exactly this synthesis. If left-hegelianism is restricted to abstract philosophy rather than material theories, then there is less impetus for physical revolution.

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.

And given this theoretical corpus emphasizes revolutionary and terrorist action and is less philosophical (no unified philosophy without Marx), I assume that 20th century socialist revolutions would either be less successful, or they would be more conventional.
 
Someone is going to come up with a socially necessary labour power LTV. It probably isn't as essential to bourgeois socialism.

Proletarian revolutionism continues in reaction to wage, factory and by our hand alone or by none. With the pre-1910 eclecticism in inspiration.

The lack of a second line of bourgeois socialists of last resort, the bourgeois Marxists, probably means more "radical labourite" projects ala IWW: incipient radicalism won't be taken up by groups even more irrelevant than the DeLeonists or Bolsheviks or Mensheviks. Maybe more repetitions of the moral / physical force debates inside labourist movements.
 
Top