As I assume we all know, Marxism(-Leninism) became the dominant revolutionary ideology in the Left after the Russian Revolution and arguably earlier in the late 1800s. What if a different ideology like mutualism (for instance) had taken hold? Which ideologies could have replaced Marxism? When would this dominance become clear? What would the effects be on the tone of global revolutions?
Alternate dominant revolutionary ideology?
- Thread starter DirtyCommie
- Start date
I tend to think that if Marxist-derived ideologies didn't catch on, a kind of Christian collectivism would have taken the place of most of OTL communism and fascism.
That is, Christianity and leftism would be synonymous in representative democracies, and something resembling a more Christian totalitarianism would be found in places like *USSR, and something like 'revolutionary theology' would give voice to revolts over land reform and civil rights.
If this resulted in a Cold War equivalent, it would be 'our way is the only way to God' against 'the way to God is between Man and God' ideologies, probably a Eurasian totalitarianism as the former and the United States as the latter.
That is, Christianity and leftism would be synonymous in representative democracies, and something resembling a more Christian totalitarianism would be found in places like *USSR, and something like 'revolutionary theology' would give voice to revolts over land reform and civil rights.
If this resulted in a Cold War equivalent, it would be 'our way is the only way to God' against 'the way to God is between Man and God' ideologies, probably a Eurasian totalitarianism as the former and the United States as the latter.
Depends on both how far back we go. For instance, given greater successes of the reactionary orders, "republicanism" could still be a revolutionary movement quite late.
Very true! I was thinking 1860s and beyond, though. Or at least purely post Napoleon.
This is past 1900 sorry but,
Fascism is a revolutionary third positionist ideology. If not for Hitler, Fascism could have easily caught on.
Get Mussolini to refuse to ally with Hitler and Nazism will be discredited as something else. While Mussolini Fascism (Traditional Fascism) will be seen in a much more positive light.
Fascism is a revolutionary third positionist ideology. If not for Hitler, Fascism could have easily caught on.
Get Mussolini to refuse to ally with Hitler and Nazism will be discredited as something else. While Mussolini Fascism (Traditional Fascism) will be seen in a much more positive light.
Ok.
Well, ultranationalism could have been picked further up by the left. Many communal movements were originally nationalist in nature, and a lot of the fascists and proto-fascists we would get OTL started off amongst the revolutionary left.
Well, ultranationalism could have been picked further up by the left. Many communal movements were originally nationalist in nature, and a lot of the fascists and proto-fascists we would get OTL started off amongst the revolutionary left.
I know, the founder of Proto-Fascism/National Syndicalism as credited by Benito Mussolini was Georges Sorel. Sorel was a Nationalistic Socialist.
It's true that Fascism/National Syndicalism could certainly be a viable revolutionary alternative to Marxism, but I am looking for something slightly earlier. My own idea was that Mutualism could become the dominant revolutionary tendency, or Bakuninism. An off-the-wall idea, but one that I think could make sense, especially if you have increasingly authoritarian reactionary states, would be egoist anarchism or "Stirnerism"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism) becoming the dominant tendency. I feel like it would also appeal to middle-class politics as well, as it did IOTL. In fact, the real problem may be getting Stirnerism to appeal to the working class.
If any anarchism, and I count historical mutualism (Proudhon...) among these, were the dominant revolutionary ideology, then revolutionary ideologies would have been much more of a fringe phenomenon, and never haven gained such traction and hegemony as they did in the 20th century.
A Christian hegemony in revolutionary thinking would require a PoD before the French Revolution, I suspect. Progressive political philosophy of the 19th century was just so deeply anti-religious that I can`t see that happening. It would be perfectly logical with earlier PoDs, of course.
Nationalism can only be revolutionary until you`ve established your nation state. Then, it can perhaps turn into anti-imperialism, but as a state doctrine, that`s hardly revolutionary.
Fascism was always deeply reactionary, it was the petty bourgeoisie`s frightened reaction to the rise of the revolutionary left (both in socioeconomic field and in the field of religion, morality etc.).
I´ll go for a non-anarchist, non-Marxist Syndicalism therefore. Trade unions were a strong and growing force, and they were open to include almost everyone, appealing to older traditions (guilds and the like) as well as to the latest ideas around (universal participation). Having them fight for the takeover of economic AND political power could gain enough traction to become dominant. In fact, most socialist / working class movements in the late 19th century were a symbiosis between moderately Syndicalist unions and Marxist political thinkers. In some cases, the latter came to dominate the former, while in others, the former was dominant and shed its Syndicalism in favour of parliamentary reform agendas.
A Christian hegemony in revolutionary thinking would require a PoD before the French Revolution, I suspect. Progressive political philosophy of the 19th century was just so deeply anti-religious that I can`t see that happening. It would be perfectly logical with earlier PoDs, of course.
Nationalism can only be revolutionary until you`ve established your nation state. Then, it can perhaps turn into anti-imperialism, but as a state doctrine, that`s hardly revolutionary.
Fascism was always deeply reactionary, it was the petty bourgeoisie`s frightened reaction to the rise of the revolutionary left (both in socioeconomic field and in the field of religion, morality etc.).
I´ll go for a non-anarchist, non-Marxist Syndicalism therefore. Trade unions were a strong and growing force, and they were open to include almost everyone, appealing to older traditions (guilds and the like) as well as to the latest ideas around (universal participation). Having them fight for the takeover of economic AND political power could gain enough traction to become dominant. In fact, most socialist / working class movements in the late 19th century were a symbiosis between moderately Syndicalist unions and Marxist political thinkers. In some cases, the latter came to dominate the former, while in others, the former was dominant and shed its Syndicalism in favour of parliamentary reform agendas.
That is, to some extent, the inevitable status quo, and has been for more than a century. How would you want to make it revolutionary?
Have someone like Howard Scott write a book denouncing the "irrational policies" of some government and calling for said government to be overthrown for a "rule by reason" to emerge?
IOTL, media coverage on politicians and their decisions often chastises some of them as "irrational" and going against what this or that specific discipline (often economics) have allegedly found out, and expressing the hope that others would take their place and act more in accordance with said scientific "truths".
So we`re not very far from that. The big difference would be the "overthrow" aspect. Although, I think I remember reading some NYT articles suggesting people in certain Latin American countries should overthrow their economically irrational governments.
Radicalising this would be somewhat difficult because there are so many different scientific communities, and even most researchers in natural sciences don`t consider themselves the best-suited to run the government. Also, political philosophers and other guys from the social sciences would certainly abhor the idea mostly. Running a revolution without a revolutionary class, or expressly against it, appears difficult, to say the least.
samcster94
Banned
Well, although Haiti is the only one we have OTL, a world with more slave revolts that work successfully would count, even if the countries created would be shunned. I can't think of a name for this(although the New Orleans 1811 revolt would be an early example of this).
In my opinion, revolutionary ideologies are invariably utopian totalitarian ideologies. Whether these would be characterized as right-wing, like national socialism, or left-wing, like the various forms of Marxism, the primary component is the call for the destruction of the existing social power structure (Jewish economic domination of Germany for the national socialists or the bourgeoisie for the communists) and its replacement with a utopian social order. Whether the revolution is a violent uprising of the proletariat or is simply a redirection of government power is irrelevant. Any alternate revolutionary ideology would be very similar to the revolutionary ideologies we've already seen.
I wasn't suggesting actual fascism, but pointing out that the tendency towards internationalism in socialism was far from a sure thing. If not nationalism, revolutionary regionalism or (for an anarchist inspired dominant revolutionary idea) a municipalitarianism were possible elements.
No.
Anarcho-capitalism is as flawed in theory as it is in practice; the free enterprise of markets in every corner of the globe have shown that capital likes to marry itself to government, both for security and guaranteed wealth that can come with exclusivity. At most, we could see something like objectivism take hold (theoretically, not realistically without a major paradigm shift).
In fact, there are very few alternatives. Without exaggeration, Marxism became the only truly revolutionary current of our time (as liberalism was the only truly progressive trend in the first half of the 19th century). The question is why? Why did you lose anarchism? First, anarchism is a loose concept - under it are a number of different movements united by the rejection of the state. And here we go to the second point - the state is a superstructure, first we need to change the basis.
Why not religious socialism? Because their goals are abstract, divorced from reality, and their world-view impregnated with metaphysics.
And fascism and Nazism? These movements are striving to maintain a basis - private ownership of the means of production. And their ideas are completely irrational. These reactionaries are struggling with the revolution by its own methods.
Why not religious socialism? Because their goals are abstract, divorced from reality, and their world-view impregnated with metaphysics.
And fascism and Nazism? These movements are striving to maintain a basis - private ownership of the means of production. And their ideas are completely irrational. These reactionaries are struggling with the revolution by its own methods.