Well aside from millions of people still being alive today in all possibility, I think the differnces between Marx;s theories and what was practiced in his name is pretty large.  I dont personally agree with either the theory or how it was practiced but there is a noticeable difference.  Techinically Marxism didnt account for the unwillingess of people to give up power and so was (according to Marxist theories I suppose) stuck the societies in a transistion phase.

Of course when we look at communism practiced especially in the USSR we see something so close to facism (its supposed opposite) its amazing they didnt get along better.  The irony being no one was more like nazi Germany than its arch foe, Stalinist Russia. 

So really, I dont think the world would be too different, Russia and others may have just adopted facism instead of communism, and they would have acted in much the same way.

The crimean Tatars wouldt have been deported 1944 and we Tatars would still use the Arabic alafabet.

It would be a better world if you ask me.

The Tsar wouldn't have lasted, Russia would have gone the way of China and had an equally murderous military/nationalist dictatorship.

The other main effect is they'd still be fighting in the Balkans (well more than now)

The other interesting what if, is would Hitler have wrote the nasty stuff about Russia in Mein Kampf? Could there have been an alliance and world conquest by them as pals?

There would be no welfare, no minimum wage, no social security, no decent  healthcare anywhere in the world. Child labour would be commonplace everywhere. There would have been no limit in working hours, or overtime payment, and we'd work 12 hours per day. The rich would have been richer and the poor would have been poorer. Up to here anarchists are also responsible (they can be considered communists in the sense Marx used the term anyway), and to a lesser degree, other socialists.

Also there would have been no government-owned industries or services nor any economic planning. No working class-based parties or politics. Even the 'working class' itself is a communist invention. Until Marx there were 'working classes' which were thought to have little in common, not a single self aware political subject. In many countries, women wouldn't have had the rights they have today, or they would have gained them only recently in many places. Many a third world country would have emerged from imperialist rule much later, if at all.

Nazis would have invaded Europe and have dominated it (without the Soviet industrialisation no way in hell Soviets would have won that war). Millions would have been killed. The map of the world would be quite different. On the other hand, considering how much the fascist movement owes (i.e. stolen from) to the communist mass-mobilization politics, maybe there would have been no nazis in the first place, just some typical repressive conservative regime instead.     

It think most of these ideas pre-dated Marx by several centuries.

Exactly Russia was never truely communist but a totalitarian regime. Communism was used as an excuse for their act of savagery.

 well you can use the french revolution as a reference, in 18-19th century  France was not prepare for a democracy so the revolution eventually lead to a dictatorship as with Robespierre and further dictatorship with Napoleon. russia can be considered as lagging in the trend overhall,  her revolution came later during the early 20th century, but it followed the same pattern as the french revolution.

A revolution is just a start ofa long process, they tried to apply the communist principles in russia but the society is experiencing something new and due  prematurity of application  the communism, some people will exploit the principle of communism (or of the republic  as during the french revolution) to create a totalitarian regime. Infact communism was only transitory, totalitarianism was the intermediate result but disguise as communism. Basically communism never truely took roots in russia, it is the revolution that is important here not communism herself, and the intermediate resultof a revolution is totalitarianism.

Now russia is has a new system closer to capitalism somehow, however russia it is failing. After the fall of the supposed communist regime, the nation seem to undergo a sort of demographic suicide, a sharp fall in fertility rate. although russia  GDP is growing, the wealth is concentrated in the hand of a few known as the oligarch and russia is turning increasing into an oil economy. It seems capitalism would be worst to russia than totalitarianism (disguise as communism, you are getting my point by now) ever was. So they may try to reintroduce communism later, since the society is well aware of the weaknesses and strengths of communism, it may now work as a model.

 Remember after the french revolution it took many attempts to get it right in France.

 And fool nobody is going to tell you how to right your introduction here, get your lazy bum to work.

Communism was just a way out of pre-existing social problems which a number of typically middle class intellectual types supported because they saw the injustices inflicted on the poor in the world in which they lived. But I suppose in the absence of both communism and fascism there wasn't really another ideology which held the promise of bringing people forward in the world at the time. Democracy is all well and good, but if you don't live in a stable, secure, fairly prosperous country with good infrastructure its tends to be asking a bit much for it to work.

It is fair to say that something similar to the French Revolution would most likely have happened, a social revolution without an ideology as extensive as communism for it to be guided by and for it to corrupt in the process. Communism and fascism were the responses to the actual problems: the need for political change in a world of the "mass society". So in their absence you would either have something French Revolution style, a military dictatorship which somewhat responds to the need for change or a few lcuky cases of countries with leaders of exceptional vision who guide their nation towards a representative and responsive government.

Who's talking about ideas? We have these things not because communists thought of them first, but because they fought for them, introduced them where they had power, organised political action to bring them around or the elite was so scared of communism that it was forced to introduce them as a compromise to save capitalism.

Some of the ideas are quite old indeed (though not most of them and surely not several centuries older than Marx), but one pair of hands working accomplishes more than a million pairs locked in prayer. Or it is enough to understand the world, one needs to change it too, if you know what I mean.

OK I'll rephrase it. Many of these things have been fought for and introduced before communism came along.

"Elitism" existed long before fascism. Some anthropologists point to the establishment of civilizations based upon organized agriculture as the beginning of fixed hierarchies and therefore the elitist or invidious mentality. (there are many ongoing, intractable disputes) 

even IF the nazis were mostly motivated by elitism and racism, communism was not the likely cause. Anti-semitism in german culture had very deep roots, as did german chauvinistic nationalism. 

If I can make a suggestion- if you are at all serious about this, try to put aside all your preconceptions and approach it with a beginner's mind. That's the scientific way of doing it. Read several books from differing perspectives before making your mind up about anything.

The world would be different and Stalin would have never been in power to slaughter so many innocent people. Ideally communism is good or at least in theory, but the human factor always gets in the way and makes it evil.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

“Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans.”