What if the first international didn't collapse?

[Q]

So, we have these "what if" threads like clockwork. Mostly they are on boring stuff like "who should have followed up Lenin?", so I'm going to make a different one.

What if the anarchists weren't expelled by Marx and Bakunin remained in the first international? What kind of effects would this have had in the workers movement?

Discuss.

[Zanthorus]

The international probably would've broken up anyway after the repression that followed the Paris Commune.

[Weezer]

I think if the First International continued to the present day, I think sectarian dogma would still exist-but not to today's extent. I don't think authoritarian interpretations would be as popular or even exist, and the unity of Anarchism and Marxism would've made Marxism a more libertarian movement. We might have also had a worldwide revolution by now.

[Q]

I think if the First International continued to the present day, I think sectarian dogma would still exist-but not to today's extent. I don't think authoritarian interpretations would be as popular or even exist, and the unity of Anarchism and Marxism would've made Marxism a more libertarian movement. We might have also had a worldwide revolution by now.

Whether the international would still exist is highly speculative, undoubtedly there would have been many occasions over the last 140 years to break up. What I do agree with is that the deep sectarianism would probably have been less and we might have had a more diverse yet organisationally united movement.

[ContrarianLemming]

I doubt us being in a club together would have made the world sunshine and roses, I think things would have went pretty much the same way, and I think a joint orginization of the sort would always have one group kicking out another, we're always going to think Marx's ideas were authoritarian.

If if's and but's were candy and nuts..