Alternate dominant revolutionary ideology?

Skallagrim

Banned
Could an organized Anarcho-Capitalism take hold in some places?

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).

If "this actually works out more-or-less as intended" were a criterium for implementation, we could write off most - if not all - revolutionary ideologies. Most of them are, as has been suggested already, utopian and idealistic. Invariably, the theory itself isn't actually in line with the less pleasant realities of the world.

Is anarcho-capitalism (or something like it) very likely as a successful revolutionary ideology? No. But that's because revolutions usually erupt from discontent, and most discontented poor people want wealth to be taken from the oppressive elite and redistributed to the masses. Anarcho-capitalism actively forbids redistribution, so the only way to ever get to something like that is a situation where the government is so oppressive that people actively want to overthrow it... and not replace it with a new regime. Basically, a government must become so hated that a large enough group of people begin to hate the idea of government itself. I suspect that a government that big and totalitarian must almost by definition be a (meant-to-be-)"utopian" revolutionary government... which could make anarcho-capitalism the creed of an eventual anti-government reactionary counter-revolution.

Will it actually work? In most cases, you're going to end up with something a bit feudal, I'd guess. But since communism typically doesn't lead to a classless society but to a one-party dictatorship with a bizarrely wealthy party elite... I'm sort of guessing that "it really works" isn't a criterium for being counted as a revolutionary ideology.

tl;dr -- the fact that ideologies are, to some degree or other, hopelessly utopian does not stop them from being implemented (and subsequently failing spectacularly).
 
If "this actually works out more-or-less as intended" were a criterium for implementation, we could write off most - if not all - revolutionary ideologies. Most of them are, as has been suggested already, utopian and idealistic. Invariably, the theory itself isn't actually in line with the less pleasant realities of the world.

Is anarcho-capitalism (or something like it) very likely as a successful revolutionary ideology? No. But that's because revolutions usually erupt from discontent, and most discontented poor people want wealth to be taken from the oppressive elite and redistributed to the masses. Anarcho-capitalism actively forbids redistribution, so the only way to ever get to something like that is a situation where the government is so oppressive that people actively want to overthrow it... and not replace it with a new regime. Basically, a government must become so hated that a large enough group of people begin to hate the idea of government itself. I suspect that a government that big and totalitarian must almost by definition be a (meant-to-be-)"utopian" revolutionary government... which could make anarcho-capitalism the creed of an eventual anti-government reactionary counter-revolution.

Will it actually work? In most cases, you're going to end up with something a bit feudal, I'd guess. But since communism typically doesn't lead to a classless society but to a one-party dictatorship with a bizarrely wealthy party elite... I'm sort of guessing that "it really works" isn't a criterium for being counted as a revolutionary ideology.

tl;dr -- the fact that ideologies are, to some degree or other, hopelessly utopian does not stop them from being implemented (and subsequently failing spectacularly).
Oh no, it wasn't by how it works out that I judged it impossible, but by it coming out at all.

If we have an authoritarian government, unless it denies business altogether it is far more likely (see every country in human history with capitalism) for businesses to be in bed with the government. Businesses like the government, and even small government advocates which are run by big business owners always want more for themselves or other areas to be cut so that they can get more.
If it does deny capitalism, why would such a movement start? Revolutionary ideology doesn't come from nowhere, and anyone who would have the potential to start a business is probably already in the government.

In short, Anarcho capitalism as a movement is asking the people who marry themselves to government and benefit from it to work against their own interests
 
Maybe anarcho-capitalism(a.k.a buergoise anarchism)
Would be really popular in capitalist society like america, Since is favor the rich and middle classes. And against taxation.
 
Maybe anarcho-capitalism(a.k.a buergoise anarchism)
Would be really popular in capitalist society like america, Since is favor the rich and middle classes. And against taxation.
Again though, that upper class isn't really against taxation as much as they are against themselves paying tax.
Considering the considerable donations to various political campaigns, the upper class capitalists are quite clearly in favour of strong government, military spending etc.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Well, @CountPeter is totally right in pointing out that the "moneyed elite" - often called the "capitalist class" - are not any big supporters of anarchism. It doesn't benefit them: big companies benefit from preferential treatment by governments via lobbying, "corporatism" (or "cronyism", whatever you call it), and pretty much use government power to keep down small competitors. So in this sense, "capitalism" is actually... not a free market system at all.

However... I do note that when anarcho-capitalists use the term "capitalism", they mean "free market" and nothing else. What many people call "the capitalist class" (i.e. that aforementioned elite) would be identified as "a corporatist clique" by anarcho-capitalists. So while the big business elite may well oppose anarcho-capitalism or something like it... what I suggested is still theoretically possible. Picture a really big government, detrimental to many ordinary people, which is also in bed with a select group of big industrialists, bankers, other corporate leaders etc. -- this is hardly unthinkable, after all. And now suppose this system gets so bad that some kind of anti-government revolt takes place, which is aimed at the very idea of government, against the cronyism of the corrupt elite etc.

Regardless of how well it would work out, the initial result may well be a kind of radical system that removes the "crony elite" and openly supports a free market, and basically a privatised everything. (I already outlined why that kind of sentiment is unlikely in most instances, but a dire situation where an openly oppressive government has collectivised everything and then messed it all up could result in this.)

It's a bit out there, but I wouldn't count it out as impossible. Bottom line: I agree about the elite not having use for any kind of anarchism, but I don't think that this prevents a situation whereby a popular revolution still introduces market-based anarchism in opposition to the elite.


Now to destroy my own argument, here's why that kind of thing is very unlikely in the timeframe suggested by the OP: just as @CountPeter wrote, the elite isn't typically set against government, but against a government that is detrimental to the elite's interest. When government was controlled by the economic upper class (so, basically, after the age of revolutions and before universal franchise got implemented), governments didn't disappear. They were kept small, and they served the purposes of the elite. So in most cases, that's what you'd end up with. For a present-day example of rich people supporting this, see the Koch brothers. Not anarchists. Small government types who want a government just small enough to serve their purposes and still cost them (next to) nothing.

In relation to the OP, this probably means that any 19th century revolutionary sentiment will be set against that kind of system (which was the system then existing). Interestingly, this eans that there's a good chance any revolutionary ideology will be anti-government (OTL socialism had a strong anti-government streak), but it will hardly think of itself as "capitalist". Far more likely, you will see a sort of anarchism that aims to remove the government, but organise society with "worker's councils", "combines", "co-operatives" etc.

Much as any attempt at anarcho-capitalism will likely end in some kind of feudal system where proprty owners have power and become rulers-by-any-other-name, I styrongly suspect that any kind of other anarchism will soon see its councils, combines and co-ops also turning into governments-by-any-other-name. Of course, it would be fascinating to see how it works out.


Either way, I do think that a more anarchism-based kind of ideology is pretty easy to nudge into the mainstream, but I have fundamental doubts about any kind of anarchism ever working as advertised. Even if the people who have most of the power don't call themselves leaders... the power still exists, and they'll still wield it.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with the above, but think that such a system which is explicitly pro-market (or anti-crony/pro capitalist in theory) isn't going to come about untill after the 1900s.

On a side note and regarding revolutionary movements; could we see a more literal blending of socialist/anarchist ideology and social darwinism? People like Emile Gautier were open to being called social darwinists (although he rightfully pointed out that struggle was unneccesary given a certain degree of social evolution) long before the Nazis.
Perhaps some ideology which radically takes the spencerite vision but uses it in a socialist context; looking at the upper class as genetic inferiors because they do not struggle like the working class who have survived harsh conditions to have superior genes.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I agree wholeheartedly with the above, but think that such a system which is explicitly pro-market (or anti-crony/pro capitalist in theory) isn't going to come about untill after the 1900s.

On a side note and regarding revolutionary movements; could we see a more literal blending of socialist/anarchist ideology and social darwinism? People like Emile Gautier were open to being called social darwinists (although he rightfully pointed out that struggle was unneccesary given a certain degree of social evolution) long before the Nazis.
Perhaps some ideology which radically takes the spencerite vision but uses it in a socialist context; looking at the upper class as genetic inferiors because they do not struggle like the working class who have survived harsh conditions to have superior genes.

That tangent is very interesting. The radical progressives in the USA in OTL were pretty much on board for eugenics, and the idea you sketch - upper classes as lazy and thus weak, while the lower casses are strengthened by their struggle - was crucial to the ideas of several people in the early 20th century. Notably HG Wells. In The Time Machine, the pleasure-seeking Eloi are prey to the predator Morlocks. Wells' idea in this (explicitly outlined in the story) was that the Eloi descended from the upper classes, while the Morlocks descened from the suppressed lower classes, who had literally been forced into a subterranean hellish existence. Ultimately, the two classes truly became different species. More symbolic than literal in any real way, but the idea obviously existed: the Eloi are depicted as a race of hapless victims, made complacent by their rich environs, while the Morlocks are hardened predators, made ruthless by harsh conditions.

So, yeah. The idea of the working class being the truly superior human being could hypothetically become central to an alt-eugenics movement.
 
Last edited:
Fascism/ultranationalism seem like the most likely alternatives. With the event of ww1, The world would have probably seen themselves much more as countries, giving rise to the ideologies. I can't think of any others, so Ill have to stick to those.
 
Whilst I can't see it happening, that would be an amazing TL to read. I think an Anarchist China wouldn't neccesarily be inspirational to revolutionary movements in the west as much as it would be another source of "Yellow Peril" fear.

That tangent is very interesting. The radical progressives in the USA in OTL were pretty much on board for eugenics, and the idea you sketch - upper classes as lazy and thus weak, while the lower casses are strengthened by their struggle - was crucial to the ideas of several people in the early 20th century. Notably HG Wells. In The Time Machine, the pleasure-seeking Eloi are prey to the predator Morlocks. Wells' idea in this (explicitly outlined in the story) was that the Eloi descended from the upper classes, while the Morlocks descened from the suppressed lower classes, who had literally been forced into a subterranean hellish existence. Ultimately, the two classes truly became different species. More symbolic than literal in any real way, but the idea obviously existed: the Eloi are depicted as a race of hapless victims, made complacent by their rich environs, while the Morlocks are hardened predators, made ruthless by harsh conditions.

So, yeah. The idea of the working class being the truly superior human being could hypothetically become central to an alt-eugenics movement.
Oh god I had forgotten about the Morlocks! Whilst such a movement could be awful, again, I would love to see such a tl about that.
 
Top