There has been a number of attempts recently (Jonathan Sperber of MU 2013, and Gareth Stedman Jones of QMU 2016) to historicize the life and writings of Karl Marx, apparently to paint a contrast between Marx's ideas and the apparent relevance of his critiques' derivatives in Neo-Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. I was reading a review of these books, in which the critic summarized that Marx was a figure distinctly tied to his times: much of his writing, which has been interpreted as prophetic by later communist societies, were simply cryptic allusions to current events, for example.

Yet, as the reviewer points out, Marx was not a popular figure in his day. He was a political exile less because of some revolutionary horde of followers, but more because he was a polemic writer. When he published the Communist Manifesto, it quickly fell out of circulation. Similarly, Kapital -- a behemoth of a book that he dedicated decades of research to -- didn't make a large splash during his lifetime, and was never finished. Rather, it was Engels who compiled, edited, and published his loose papers to 'complete' the project for his longtime friend and colleague. The review then goes on to generalize that many of Marx's oft-quoted manuscripts were not published until many decades after his death, presumably because Marx himself did not view them to be worthy of publication.

So, my question. Since Marx was apparently disliked, relatively obscure within his own field (let alone within the population at large), and never had any significant students or colleagues aside from Engels, how were his ideas carried into the world after his death? Who was responsible for his deification? How do we get from a polemic philosopher that contemporaries had no time for to the international spread of Communism, inspired loosely from Marxist ideas? Why do we see 'Marxism' as a product of Marx's writings, if so much responsibility for the proliferation of his ideas is owed to his quasi-religious proponents? Finally, if my premise is flawed (e.g. if these authors' historicizings of Marx are colored against him by a distaste for his ideas), I'd love to see some meta-discussion criticizing the review as well. Thanks!