I think RDW rarely presents his ideas in a totally Marxist framework, he kind of just appeals to people’s crude self interest (for lack of a better way to put it), as well as a kind of liberal emphasis on how democracy is inherently just. But RDW has definitely read Marx, and he calls himself a Marxist, which is why a lot of people think he is trying to craft rhetoric for a certain intended audience. It’s also kind of obvious in the way he seems to avoid veering into anything too technical or academic, he always tries to be as common sense and colloquial as he can be.
But as for Proudhon and Lassalle, I really don’t think it is so simple to say that RDW is just being a Lassallean. First of all, Marx and Engels were not against co-ops as such. Engels wrote in a letter in 1886 to August Bebel:
> Marx and I never doubted that in the transition to the full communist economy we will have to use the cooperative system as an intermediate stage on a large scale.
Lassalle specifically wanted the state to support the creation of co-ops, but through a kind of state aid program. Marx and Engels always emphasized that cooperatives had to arise from the worker’s movement, because the Marxist revolutionary strategy involved always building the class consciousness of the workers. They always considered communism to be a mass movement and a historical one. The masses themselves had to be engaged, because they would not be turned to communism by simple debate or argument. They had to experience the struggle against capital to understand their shared interest against it. So in order to not dilute that, Marx and Engels saw a programme that emphasized state aid as confusing the workers on the role of the state, making them believe that it actually did serve them. However, they also said they would not reject state aid, as that would also confuse the workers on what the position of the communists was (why would our allies tell the government not to give us money?)
Furthermore, Marx told the first international that the cooperative movement in England was a greater victory for the working class than the success of achieving the ten hour workday:
> But there was in store a still greater victory of the political economy of labor over the political economy of property. We speak of the co-operative movement, especially the co-operative factories raised by the unassisted efforts of a few bold “hands”. The value of these great social experiments cannot be overrated. By deed instead of by argument, they have shown that production on a large scale, and in accord with the behests of modern science, may be carried on without the existence of a class of masters employing a class of hands; that to bear fruit, the means of labor need not be monopolized as a means of dominion over, and of extortion against, the laboring man himself; and that, like slave labor, like serf labor, hired labor is but a transitory and inferior form, destined to disappear before associated labor plying its toil with a willing hand, a ready mind, and a joyous heart. In England, the seeds of the co-operative system were sown by Robert Owen; the workingmen’s experiments tried on the Continent were, in fact, the practical upshot of the theories, not invented, but loudly proclaimed, in 1848.
So Marx and Engels were definitely in favor of cooperatives, but what they disagreed with Proudhon and Lasalle on was the details of how they were implemented, because they understood Proudhon and Lasalle to not have the same understanding of revolutionary strategy.