Alternate 1800s Ideological Realignment?

As I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the political conflict in the Western world from the 1700s to the mid-1800s was primarily one between reactionaryism and radicalism. The former represented the aristocracy and opposed reforms to make society more liberal and democratic as threats to their power; on economics, they generally supported traditional mercantilist policies like high tariffs that called for larger government. The latter represented the lower classes (though primarily the middle-to-upper class bourgeoisie) and was classically liberal, supporting republicanism and civil liberties along with less government intervention in economics. In general, their logic was that government mainly serves to help the elites, so it’s best for it to be small. This led to cases where people like John Stuart Mill are simultaneously considered classical liberals/right-libertarians and proto-socialists. The division was pretty obvious in Europe, but vaguer in America as there was no preexisting aristocracy for radicals to rebel against. In general, the Federalists/Whigs emulated reactionaries/conservatives with their support for big-government, mercantilist policies that benefited big business while the Jeffersonian Republicans/Jacksonian Democrats were classical liberals who supported limited government and opposed elitism. Of course, issues such as slavery make the analogy more complicated.

This trend of big-government conservatism vs. small-government liberalism began to change during the Industrial Revolution, during which classical liberal policies allowed businesses to exploit urban labor. In response, leftism emerged as a new force calling for big-government policies to protect consumers and laborers. In their minds, corporations had overshadowed the government as the main threat to people’s well-being. Leftists ranged from radical socialists who wanted to completely overthrow liberal capitalism to social democrats in Europe and populists in America who simply wanted to implement reforms and regulations to help the working class. In the early 1900s, the Liberals in Britain were supplanted by Labour, while in America the traditional laissez-faire Bourbon Democrats were pushed to the sidelines by progressives like William Jennings Bryan. In the meantime, the Republicans, traditionally the party of big government, soon came to endorse small-government policies while still keeping their pro-business goals. A number of ideologies such as corporatism and distributism tried to form a third way between capitalism and socialism, and of course fascism and similar ideologies became popular during this time. But overall, the primary political conflict in liberal democracies by the early 1900s largely corresponded with our modern definition of left vs. right.

---

With that exposition dump, I have a question: could things have gone differently? There obviously could have been some differences, such as if Marx, and thus his influence on leftism, never existed, but, assuming that the Industrial Revolution still happens, is it inevitable that politics in Western democracies realign to small-government, pro-business conservatives/classical liberals vs. big-government, pro-labor leftists/populists? If not, what would the alternatives be?

Essentially, with a PoD around 1800, how likely/unlikely is it that the political landscape by 1900 would end up looking like OTL?

The most obvious alternative is one of the many third position ideologies that arose in the late 1800s/early 1900s such as corporatism, which, as I understand it, wanted large government and more central planning, but supported private property and tried to play both sides of the labor vs. business conflict. More libertarian forms of socialism such as anarchism and syndicalism have also been thrown around on this board a lot as alternatives to Marxism, but what would that look like? Specifically, what would be the policies of a “moderate” left-libertarian faction that could participate in liberal democracy?
 
Last edited:
Something like left-libertarianism vs. corporatism would keep the small-government left vs. big-government right dynamic, but how sustainable would that be? AFAIK, most libertarian socialists aren't big fans of liberal democracy (at least in the long term), while modern economists have a very dim view of central planning, which would make a pro-business corporatist party unsustainable.
 

QueerSpear

Banned
The idea that economics is reduced to small government vs big government is ahistorical and born out of the Cold War ideological strife. Market liberals, including free market fundamentalists, supported tariffs as a way of protecting their nation's developing capitalist economy. Capitalism always needed direct state intervention from its birth, there's no capitalist nation that did not require massive state intervention to create capitalism within its borders and there never will as the relationship between the capitalist market and the state is symbiotic.
 
The idea that economics is reduced to small government vs big government is ahistorical and born out of the Cold War ideological strife. Market liberals, including free market fundamentalists, supported tariffs as a way of protecting their nation's developing capitalist economy. Capitalism always needed direct state intervention from its birth, there's no capitalist nation that did not require massive state intervention to create capitalism within its borders and there never will as the relationship between the capitalist market and the state is symbiotic.

Thats not entirely true either.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The idea that economics is reduced to small government vs big government is ahistorical and born out of the Cold War ideological strife. Market liberals, including free market fundamentalists, supported tariffs as a way of protecting their nation's developing capitalist economy. Capitalism always needed direct state intervention from its birth, there's no capitalist nation that did not require massive state intervention to create capitalism within its borders and there never will as the relationship between the capitalist market and the state is symbiotic.

That is quite incorrect. Both the historical claim and the economic one (although the latter depends on the definition of capitalism). The historical fact is that there were certainly market liberals who supported tarriffs, but they supported low tarriffs as opposed to high tarriffs. Also, they supported tarriffs as opposed to direct taxes, when such were proposed. The "free market fundamentalists" certainly didn't support such things, however. Consider the way the more radical Jeffersonians fought tooth and nail to keep tarriffs (and by extension all taxes) down for decades and decades. In Europe, consider the men like Bastiat. There's someone you could describe (somewhat insultingly for such an interesting thinker) as a "free market fundamentalist". Well, he certainly didn't support tarriffs or in fact any kind of impediments to trade.

Free markets versus government intervention was the big economic conflict, and incidentally remains the big issue-- and will continue to be the big issue. It lies at the core of every economic debate, and that's not a legacy of the Cold War. It's Turgot fighting against the legacy of Colbert. It's the grain laws getting repealed. It is, just as @Heliogabalus wrote, the well-to-do middle classes fighting for their interests and opposing the enforced economic privileges of an established elite. And it's a timeless thing. Regardless of how rudementary or developed the economic theories of any society are, this issue is always there. It's there when the New Men try to carve out a place for themselves in Ancient Rome. We literally observe it throughout history. And you want to reduce that to a Cold War issue? Please.

Then we get back to the issue of capitalism itself. That word wasn't used by the men in question. It is used nowadays, but when those opposed to it use it, they typically do not mean the same as its most radical defenders do. In the context of this discussion, if we take "capitalism" to mean "that which men like bastiat defended", then you are entirely wrong to suggest that its relation with the state is symbiotic. Indeed, the state (until the end of the Gilded Age, roughly) was by definition the instrument of the elite. The elite was entrenched, and hd a stake in legally defended privileges, monopolies, oligopolies, and competition-stifling regulation. All of which came from... the state.

The defenders of "capitalism", in this context, were merely the proponents of a completely (or at least vastly) deregulated economy. Because government regulations and interventions were tools of an entrenched elite. You do not need goverment to create "capitalism", if "capitalism" means "an economy devoid of government intervention". Quite the opposite. What you do need a government for is to protect your privileges, which is something that Robber Barons of all ages have done. But by the definition of Smith or Bastiat (had either used the term) such men would not be "capitalists" at all!

The problem is that when "capitalism" is used, it can mean both "free market" or "a system where the monetary elite has power". If you mean the first, then capitalism is certainly not symbiotic with government, and in fact directly opposed to it. If you mean the second, then it is true that government and capitalism are symbiotic. But then Adam Smith and Frederic Bastiat (and any free market advocate) must be defined as anti-capitalist, while Colbert and Hamilton are the actual capitalists. (Since their sort wanted government intervention to protect the interests of the wealthy elite.)
 
How far back can we go? Something like a worse but longer lasting British Commonwealth could push liberals and progressive thought in general to the enlightened absolutist camp.
 
How far back can we go? Something like a worse but longer lasting British Commonwealth could push liberals and progressive thought in general to the enlightened absolutist camp.
Preferably nothing too far before 1800. My main reason for making this thread is that I have a vague idea for a TL with a1788 PoD, and, for when I plan out its long-term trajectory, I'm curious about what ideological changes were inevitable and what could have been changed.
 
Preferably nothing too far before 1800. My main reason for making this thread is that I have a vague idea for a TL with a1788 PoD, and, for when I plan out its long-term trajectory, I'm curious about what ideological changes were inevitable and what could have been changed.
Ah that's probably a bit late for enlightened absolutism (not out of the question though).

Its fine however for Anarchism to be the main face of the left?
 
Yeah, if you think that's realistic.
I mean, it depends on what POD you have in mind I suppose.
But either way, the supremacy of statist socialism was far from a given, only really being cemented quite late by the time of the 2nd international (in which anarchists were banned) and ultimately the Bolshevik revolution. So having anarchism be your major left force is a realistic alternate path.
 
What would the policies/talking points of an anarchist left look like? From what I know about the Paris Commune, Revolutionary Catalonia, and Rojava, it would mainly focus on socialist reforms on a local level, with decisions decided by direct democracy and local councils.

Would a "moderate" version of left-libertarianism be possible? Anarchists call for a complete abolition of capitalism and replacement of liberal democracy with direct democracy, so they usually don't participate in elections or form political parties parties, but in a world were they take the place of communism as the main ideology of the far-left, could a left-libertarian philosophy that opposes excessive state and corporate power while still upholding liberal democracy emerge in the same way social democracy is usually perceived as a more "moderate" version of socialism? The only OTL equivalent that I know of is Geolibertarianism, but to be honestly, I don't really know much about their specific policies besides "the government should enact a land tax and nothing else."
 

Skallagrim

Banned
A bit of a problem, @Heliogabalus, is that "more government" is in the interests of the (relatively or just totally) poor masses, which makes fundamentally re-aligning politics into "small government and free trade left" versus "big government and protectionist right" difficult (in fact next to impossible).

My view is this: any elite, no matter its ideological background, will ultimately (come to) favour any available kind of government power to support its own position and wealth. Thus, given enough time to settle in, an elite will by definition be(come) a (relatively) "big government" faction. They keep their position via government power! The group directly "below" the elite, which has quite some clout but is kept out of the select elite (and angrily feels that it should have the same perks and privileges), is the group that will usually favour limitations on government power. Why? Because they are the ones being kept from the top position through government power! (Usually, this faction also bases its position on wealth rather than heredity, and is more interested in markets being run smoothly. Monopolies and all sorts of trade regulation etc. favour the established elite, but tend to be suboptimal econmically speaking. Thus, the "New Men", the upper bourgeoisie, usually support free and unregulated markets. They genuinely want to get rid of corrupt obstacles, but it also serves their interests.)

The above situation usually entails a certain end to (or at least limitation of) aristocratic privilege. In part because the New Men can't claim such bloodlines, and thus seek to proclaim a more meritocratic policy, and in part because a non-hereditary system also promises chances for the non-wealthy masses. This may lead to support from said masses, which the upper bourgeois types may well need to overtrow the existing elite. Also, the New Men may (and often do) genuinely believe in their own more meritocratic vision of society. For instance, it was the classical liberals - not the socialists - who first introduced such things as government pensions and public education in many Western countries. In addition, the classical liberals were the ones who gradually expanded the franchise ever more widely. Et cetera, et cetera.

Now, a side effect of the above is that the masses gain ever more influence on politics. And at that point, we reach a moment of transition. Because unlike the New Men, who quite like that small government system they've introduced, the masses typically want a bigger share of the pie. (And who can blame them?!) So they'll tend to vote for representatives who can promise them things that government can do for them. The masses greatly outnumber the upper bourgeoisie / New Men, so the aforementioned expansion of the franchise makes an era of big government almost inevitable. (The only real alternative is that the New Men soon realise the advantages of their position, curb their own meritocratic policies before "too many" poor people are enfranchised, and thus simply become the new closed-off elite. At which point they will start favouring government power to support their interests, and eventually a new class of envious New Men arises to challenge them... the wheel turns anew!)

...my point is: there is hardly a way to keep "small government" the lasting policy of the "left". Opposing government power is only in the interest of most revolutionaries for a limited period (namely as long as the government is an oppressive enemy). Cultural sentiments (a deeply rooted distrust of government power, for instance) can keep successful revolutionaries quite anti-government for a bit longer (see: the Jeffersonian tradition in the USA), but as a general rule, after the evil government has been defeated, most ex-revolutionaries no longer have any reason to hate all government. Most of them are in fact likely to want to institute what they consider "good government"-- which almost always means "a government that somehow redistributes some wealth to the masses".

I don't think you can actually find a stable, lasting way around this.

If you can create a situation whereby the entrenched elite sticks to economic regulation and protectionism for a very long time, and crushes all dissent using brutal force (i.e. government power), then you may eventually expect a situation wherein this elite is violently overtrown and all its policies are rejected. That could well lead to a new regime that is deeply sceptical of all government power, and which is fundamentally opposed to government meddling in the economy. If the revolutionaries weave their ideals deeply into any laws and constitutions they produce, getting rid of that legacy becomes even harder. (Especially if they also have the foresight to explicitly rule out "implied powers" and that kind of stuff, and order all judges to adhere to a literal interpretation of the - government-limiting - law.) So that could last for quite some time-- although not forever, I think. Eventually, the initial sentiments and cultural norms are forgotten, and the tempting allure of using government power will prove irresistable to someone. And step by step, a state apparatus will be built up, which will allow those who wield it to become an entrenched elite, which will cause resentment, and so on and so forth until the very end of all days.
 
...my point is: there is hardly a way to keep "small government" the lasting policy of the "left".
Interesting analysis. So, for example, in American politics, it would be inevitable for politics to evolve similar to OTL without dramatic changes?

-1789-1870s/90s: Main divide is between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian factions. The former generally supports economic nationalism, high tariffs, centralized banking, internal improvements, and modernization and is perceived as the party of urbanites and the wealthy elite. The latter generally supports laisezz-faire, low tariffs, decentralized banking, and low spending and is perceived as the party of rural people and the "common man".
-1870s/90s-1910s/30s: Weird time of realignment when the Jeffersonian tradition of limited government is increasingly seen as harmful to the working class, while businesses become less supportive of the Hamiltonian big-government tradition. The parties become big-tent as progressivism/populism becomes a major force.
-1910s/30s-present: Main divide is between left and right (the names would be different, but the concepts would be the similar). The former generally supports high spending for programs such as welfare, healthcare, and education paid for by high taxes and is perceived as benefiting the working class. The latter generally supports lower spending and fewer regulations in return for lower taxes and is perceived as benefiting businesses.

(this obviously ignores issues such as slavery, which was the dominant issue from the 1850s-60s, and modern social issues that aren't directly related to economic dichotomy but still play major roles in politics)
 
Top