No Marx, what happens to the left

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@VVD0D95

FYI Anarchy has never meant chaos in the English language. Anarchy is derived from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".

 

[Admiral Matt]

Anarchy is unlikely primarily due to the nature of power, which is inherently self-reinforcing, rather than the nature of humans. Humans would probably take to it alright if it were available in a more broad sense than it has been historically. The trouble is that humans exercising power seek to maintain it and expand it. A primary result is that societies without rulers tend to exist only where power has trouble reaching.

 

[LNSS]

Simple, anarchism as a concept to me contradicts human nature, we're very programmed to want order and structure. And often those who like anarchism, and consider themselves anarchists wouldn't last very long in an actual anarchistic setting, due to their actual political beliefs-be they SJWs or Right Wing nuts-.

You should read "Homage to Catalonia" to get an idea on how Anarchism works in practice. I suspect it's not how you imagine it to be.

 

[Max Sinister]

Looking through civilisation from the get, we've always tended to organise into some form of structure and order. If there's chaos, either it's complete chaos, or people look for someone to come in and settle things down.

OTOH, people don't like it if someone bosses them around. (That's what I had been thinking of.)

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

So this timeline might be Engel's time to shine?

 

[Admiral Matt]

Would many voices be harder to answer than one, or easier? Marxism changed the terms of debate, but with everything being Marxism or not-Marxism, Marxism became inextricably identified with Russia, and to a lesser extent China. Not to mention, that made it easier to conflate the two until "Marxist" states were well buried.

My impulse is that something will take off and become the big idea.

 

[CountPeter]

Simple, anarchism as a concept to me contradicts human nature, we're very programmed to want order and structure. And often those who like anarchism, and consider themselves anarchists wouldn't last very long in an actual anarchistic setting, due to their actual political beliefs-be they SJWs or Right Wing nuts-.

Anarchists are not opposed to order and structure. The O surrounding the typical anarchist A literally stands for that. What is opposed by Anarchists is non-voluntary heirarchical structure.

Also this next bit isnt entirely directed at yourself, but ive heard the human nature thing a lot over the last week; human nature is not really that much of a factor in political and economic organisation.
Everyone working an office job should be very familiar with how absurdly in opposition office life is to human nature. Sitting hunched over with constant deadlines, limited dopamine potential for finishing abstract tasks and poor ventilation is so bad for us physically and mentally that multiple entire industries have been created just to put a bandaid on the problem.

Despite how in opposition to human nature the most essential functions of modern capitalism are, it functions very well.

 

[VVD0D95]

Is that all you have left? Semantics?
Look, if you're just gonna sit there and repeat modern society's pro-hierarchical ideology which has been indoctrinated into you and many others from the beginning, i'm not sure your point is worth debating. Sorry if i came out as a bit rude.

If the literal definition isn’t being met what’s the point of the name? Anarchism doesn’t seem to fit the term or label it seems to claim. Furthermore I’d genuinely love to see an anarchist try and function in such a society.

 

[VVD0D95]

@VVD0D95

FYI Anarchy has never meant chaos in the English language. Anarchy is derived from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".

From the oxford dictionary


a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Then why call it anarchism, if there’s no disorder? its Not anarchy it’s a libertarian model of
Living then

Considering that Anarchism has a full century more age than Libertarianism, one could say that Libertarians are re-labelling the Anarchist model of living.

But in all seriousness - just adding an ism to the end of a word can mean different things, especially when you make it political.

Social vs Socialism
Anarchy vs Anarchism
(small-s) conservative vs Conservative

So lets drop the semantic discussion.

But the real clue as to the relationship between Libertarians and Anarchism is the Anarcho-Capitalists, often radical versions of the Libertarians. Oddly enough of all the Anarchisms, I see this as the most likely to both exist in a small scale, but fundamentally fail as a societal model.

Although, just to nip it in the bud, are we really going to continue to have a State Of Nature argument without mentioning Hobbes or Rousseau? To throw my hat in the ring, I'm with Hobbes on this one. Mainly because if people really sought order and hierarchy, we'd both live in absolutist states, and children wouldn't try and take things they aren't meant to.

We're all rebels at heart - this stretches from procrastination at work, to crime, to abuse of power. We're both competitive and collaborative, orderly and disorderly. Heck, the existence of the Nation-State vs a One-World-Government is evidence that we aren't pro-hierarchy in nature.

However, it seems you're using a completely different definition to Anarchism to actual Anarchists, which would suggest that MAYBE you should argue apples with apples, rather than apples with spaghetti.

 

[ninel]

Suppose Karl Marx had not been born or maybe just born a girl or died before he started writing.

I think that there would still be radical demands from less well off folk.

There were radical demands before Marx and there would be even without him. Marx didn't invent communism - understood as the "real workers' movement" - he just formulated a theory of it.

 

[Bison]

Considering that Anarchism has a full century more age than Libertarianism, one could say that Libertarians are re-labelling the Anarchist model of living.

But in all seriousness - just adding an ism to the end of a word can mean different things, especially when you make it political.

Social vs Socialism
Anarchy vs Anarchism
(small-s) conservative vs Conservative

So lets drop the semantic discussion.

But the real clue as to the relationship between Libertarians and Anarchism is the Anarcho-Capitalists, often radical versions of the Libertarians. Oddly enough of all the Anarchisms, I see this as the most likely to both exist in a small scale, but fundamentally fail as a societal model.

Although, just to nip it in the bud, are we really going to continue to have a State Of Nature argument without mentioning Hobbes or Rousseau? To throw my hat in the ring, I'm with Hobbes on this one. Mainly because if people really sought order and hierarchy, we'd both live in absolutist states, and children wouldn't try and take things they aren't meant to.

We're all rebels at heart - this stretches from procrastination at work, to crime, to abuse of power. We're both competitive and collaborative, orderly and disorderly. Heck, the existence of the Nation-State vs a One-World-Government is evidence that we aren't pro-hierarchy in nature.

However, it seems you're using a completely different definition to Anarchism to actual Anarchists, which would suggest that MAYBE you should argue apples with apples, rather than apples with spaghetti.

The core difference between 'anarcho-communism' and 'anarcho-capitalism' lies in the conception of private proverty - to me, it seems that 'anarcho-communism' is in and of itself hypocritical because property is as natural a right as the right to own your own body (i.e. you own your body, you own your labour, you own the fruit of your labour), whereas anarcho-capitalism isnt actually anarchist because the enforcement of natural rights requires a state or institutions that act as states. Dr. David Friedman is a prominent anarcho-capitalist and believes that things like the police and judiciary system will be replaced by private rights enforcement agencies that arbitrate between themselves because it opens law enforcement to competition thus ensuring quality.

For most libertarians, I think so-called minarchism should serve as the north star where the state stops being a decision making institution and become an institution that protects the rights of the individual (night-watchman state) which effectively requires only a judicial system and perhaps a defensive military.

 

[Ivoshafen]

That took... what... five posts to get off topic?

In a serious response, you'd see a much more divided left but one more prone to coalitions, at least that's my quick take on it

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The core difference between 'anarcho-communism' and 'anarcho-capitalism' lies in the conception of private proverty - to me, it seems that 'anarcho-communism' is in and of itself hypocritical because property is as natural a right as the right to own your own body (i.e. you own your body, you own your labour, you own the fruit of your labour), whereas anarcho-capitalism isnt actually anarchist because the enforcement of natural rights requires a state or institutions that act as states. Dr. David Friedman is a prominent anarcho-capitalist and believes that things like the police and judiciary system will be replaced by private rights enforcement agencies that arbitrate between themselves because it opens law enforcement to competition thus ensuring quality.

For most libertarians, I think so-called minarchism should serve as the north star where the state stops being a decision making institution and become an institution that protects the rights of the individual (night-watchman state) which effectively requires only a judicial system and perhaps a defensive military.

(Why the quotes? They are explicit terms dammit! They don't need quotes!)

Regarding property rights - no, they aren't natural. They are recognised terms, if they were natural you'd never have seen the commons. It is enshrined now, and that isn't (IMO) itself a bad thing. However the concept of the Commons and unused land existed all the way (at least in the UK) till Enclosure.

Plus, Anarcho-Communism respects the concept of Personal Property, but not Private property - an important distinction IMO. I don't see how that is hypocritical since its a base position.

As for Anarcho-Capitalism, I think the idea is terrible, and self-defeating for exactly what you outline. It demands the end of a state, but Capitalism relies on the institutions of the state to function. However we've seen historically that private armies, private police forces, and private land agencies all have the power to become states in and of themselves. Private industry tends to try and monopolise. If the All-Green Police of New Mexico have an effective monopoly on force in the region. It all relies on the principle of non-aggression, ignoring that humans abuse power all the time. Hence why it is the most likely to appear, but also collapse. I guess we agree there

Minarchism makes more sense - but the reality is that if all it does is protect private property (basically the Night-Watchmen State in practice), it ignores all sorts of other abuses that we developed a state to address. Everything from sanitation, to common standards, etc. Which leads to my biggest issue with Libertarianism. It tends to be a naive ideology that has no method to address bad actors. Further, in Democratic states, it completely ignores that the Democracy IS a system of self-governance. It is why you see a peculiar political trend of "Libertarians" moving to "Authoritarians" rather rapidly, because the reality is not that they want localised power, but they object to the decisions that have already been made. There are good-faith Libertarians, but considering that tent is already used as a thoroughfare I don't see it capable of building a functioning society that won't be steam-rolled.

In contrast, the equivalent to me would by Syndicalism, which does address a whole mess of these principles.

 

[Bison]

(Why the quotes? They are explicit terms dammit! They don't need quotes!)

Regarding property rights - no, they aren't natural. They are recognised terms, if they were natural you'd never have seen the commons. It is enshrined now, and that isn't (IMO) itself a bad thing. However the concept of the Commons and unused land existed all the way (at least in the UK) till Enclosure.

Plus, Anarcho-Communism respects the concept of Personal Property, but not Private property - an important distinction IMO. I don't see how that is hypocritical since its a base position.

As for Anarcho-Capitalism, I think the idea is terrible, and self-defeating for exactly what you outline. It demands the end of a state, but Capitalism relies on the institutions of the state to function. However we've seen historically that private armies, private police forces, and private land agencies all have the power to become states in and of themselves. Private industry tends to try and monopolise. If the All-Green Police of New Mexico have an effective monopoly on force in the region. It all relies on the principle of non-aggression, ignoring that humans abuse power all the time. Hence why it is the most likely to appear, but also collapse. I guess we agree there

Minarchism makes more sense - but the reality is that if all it does is protect private property (basically the Night-Watchmen State in practice), it ignores all sorts of other abuses that we developed a state to address. Everything from sanitation, to common standards, etc. Which leads to my biggest issue with Libertarianism. It tends to be a naive ideology that has no method to address bad actors. Further, in Democratic states, it completely ignores that the Democracy IS a system of self-governance. It is why you see a peculiar political trend of "Libertarians" moving to "Authoritarians" rather rapidly, because the reality is not that they want localised power, but they object to the decisions that have already been made. There are good-faith Libertarians, but considering that tent is already used as a thoroughfare I don't see it capable of building a functioning society that won't be steam-rolled.

In contrast, the equivalent to me would by Syndicalism, which does address a whole mess of these principles.

For me, the deal with democracy is that if you cant trust people with power over themselves (liberty), how can they have power over others (democracy)? I think decisions should be left up to the individual rather than the collective.

Sorry if this is a little off topic. If Marx wasnt there, I think we'd still the left take on a pro-working class take because in every hierarchy you need a voice for those disposessed by it - however, what Marx did is rather than rejecting the tyrranichal hierarchy of his circumstance, he rejected the concept of hierarchy itself ('classless society') and that is crazy - wherever there is value, there is hierarchy. I am writing this because I have a hierarchy (i.e. I value this over doing something else) and there are hierarchies in organisms which evolved way before humans and even way before trees.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

For me, the deal with democracy is that if you cant trust people with power over themselves (liberty), how can they have power over others (democracy)? I think decisions should be left up to the individual rather than the collective.

Eh topics veer.

This is where the crux lies - people repeatedly prove that they don't respect the liberty of others (Lynchings, etc) which is why we've evolved laws, institutions, democratic procedure, and more complex philosophies, etc.

But fundamentally people agreed to restrict their right to absolute liberty to both attain security, but also Mutual Liberty, and the ability to have a say on the actions of the institutions they set up to ensure that. This holds true for 5 friends voting (majority agreed, social pressure dictates - sure you can leave, but that comes with a social price "spoilsport" "sore loser").

So they still have power over themselves in all the ways they agree to preserve. If anything, Libertarianism rejects the equality of the individual in having a say on how society runs, in favour of hyper-individualism where the 1st Person Perspective is always right. It doesn't actually provide any mechanism to prevent a slide into Anarcho-Plutocratism.

The reality is that Democracy is the balancing act between individual liberty, and the respect for others personal liberty. In a more mature and robust system than libertarianism.

Sorry if this is a little off topic. If Marx wasnt there, I think we'd still the left take on a pro-working class take because in every hierarchy you need a voice for those disposessed by it - however, what Marx did is rather than rejecting the tyrranichal hierarchy of his circumstance, he rejected the concept of hierarchy itself ('classless society') and that is crazy - wherever there is value, there is hierarchy. I am writing this because I have a hierarchy (i.e. I value this over doing something else) and there are hierarchies in organisms which evolved way before humans and even way before trees.

Marx wasn't the first to reject Hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers .

Also, priorities aren't the same as hierarchy. What you just described are priorities. They may create a hierarchy, but that isn't the same as BEING a hierarchical system. That is also not what Marx was talking about (your patterns of procrastination being so far from the concept of class that I fail to see why it should be relevant.) Class was about a system of enforced hierarchy. Even if we recognised your system of preferences as a hiearchy, that is a personal one. Class specifically placed people into different positions of value and power that were enforced. No policeman is going to punish me for not abiding by your system of preferences.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Huge blow to social sciences. No historical materialism, the field of sociology might not exist or be totally different.

Marx wasn't the first to conceive historical materialism either, that distinction belongs to Sir John Harrington in the late C16th or early C17th. Marx was essentially a syncretist not an original thinker. There was a reason why he spent all that time ensconced in the British museum library.
Prudhon, Sorel and Bakunin would all have been more influential.

 

[Salvador79]

A lot of the discussion in this thread probably belongs in the Chat section.

Without Marx, I'm not sure if sociology as a specific discipline would have arisen between political philosophy, anthropology, and more applied administrative data collection methodology.

As for the labor movement, its adherence to Marxism in the late 19th century was probably a shallow one, but even that gave its organizations and actions a sense of their supreme historical Mission which I don't see who else would necessarily have done in his stead. It's a difference if you fight just for justice and your own interests, or also for Progress and the inevitable course of history.

Things become more and more drastic down the line - without a universal coherent philosophy like Marxism dominating all social democracy, I'd imagine any radical uprising in, say, Russia, would not follow at all trappings like Menshevik stage theory or Bolshevik dictatorship of the Proletariat. Mind you, divisions would likely be even greater, but along utterly different lines.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

A lot of the discussion in this thread probably belongs in the Chat section.

Without Marx, I'm not sure if sociology as a specific discipline would have arisen between political philosophy, anthropology, and more applied administrative data collection methodology.

As for the labor movement, its adherence to Marxism in the late 19th century was probably a shallow one, but even that gave its organizations and actions a sense of their supreme historical Mission which I don't see who else would necessarily have done in his stead. It's a difference if you fight just for justice and your own interests, or also for Progress and the inevitable course of history.

Things become more and more drastic down the line - without a universal coherent philosophy like Marxism dominating all social democracy, I'd imagine any radical uprising in, say, Russia, would not follow at all trappings like Menshevik stage theory or Bolshevik dictatorship of the Proletariat. Mind you, divisions would likely be even greater, but along utterly different lines.

In a way there is a benefit for a lack of that single overriding theory - it means that "Marxism" couldn't be as readily applied as a cudgel to left-wing movements. Further on your point - you also change a potential alignment of WW2.

 

[Salvador79]

In a way there is a benefit for a lack of that single overriding theory - it means that "Marxism" couldn't be as readily applied as a cudgel to left-wing movements. Further on your point - you also change a potential alignment of WW2.

Could go either way.
WW2 is certainly butterflied, isn't it? I'm not even sure WW1 would look the way it did IOTL. Certainly some major war was likely, given the combination of nationalism, imperialism, modern state administration, industrial military capacities and the various anachronistic political entities trying to grapple with all this, along with German unification. But I'd say without Marxism, WW1 looks a lot different and not only from 1917 onwards. Who knows how all those political Elements filling what IOTL was the space of Marxism would have altered political events and decisions in France, Germany, Austria-Hungary etc.