No Marx, what happens to the left

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

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.

I'm not so sure that WW2 wouldn't happen.

The underlying social pressures that led to WW1 seem to be intact - and whilst Marx isn't around, all that would mean is that Russia either doesn't leave the war, or engages in a civil war under different terms.

Perhaps a peace deal with Russia involved is less brutal, under a situation that leads to the Tsar being able to moderate internal problems, and wanting to prevent those same pressures destroy Germany, and cause a radical state to emerge to make their life horrid.

But overall, whilst the Post-WW1 theories may change, I'm not entirely convinced that a follow-up war isn't going to happen, short of German Jainism becoming the dominant school of thought in Germany after WW1.

Even if we assume that WW1 has different triggers, I doubt we're going to see Germany and France on the same side - and as a result, one or the other will be dealt harsh terms because at the time the consequences of those harsh terms weren't expected, or if they were, those expectations were ignored. Leading to at least one radical economic climate that leads to a radical state.

 

[Aviennca's Pupil]

@VVD0D95

Well I'm wrong about the "never meant chaos in the English language" part but I guess that makes sense considering that I'm not a native English speaker. However everything else is correct and anarchy as a political concept is completely different from anarchy as a term. That's like asking why would the Democratic Party in the US would call themselves Democratic. It's an easy distinction to make.

 

[VVD0D95]

@VVD0D95

Well I'm wrong about the "never meant chaos in the English language" part but I guess that makes sense considering that I'm not a native English speaker. However everything else is correct and anarchy as a political concept is completely different from anarchy as a term. That's like asking why would the Democratic Party in the US would call themselves Democratic. It's an easy distinction to make.

Fair enough.

 

[VaultJumper]

II mean, sure Marx was influential, his ideas were ultimately not grounded in reality. Furthermore, anarchism as a concept is just so fundamentally hilarious to me.

Marx's criticisms of capitalism we're/are deeply rooted in realty while some of his solutions on the other leave much to be desired.

 

[Salvador79]

I'm not so sure that WW2 wouldn't happen.

The underlying social pressures that led to WW1 seem to be intact - and whilst Marx isn't around, all that would mean is that Russia either doesn't leave the war, or engages in a civil war under different terms.

Perhaps a peace deal with Russia involved is less brutal, under a situation that leads to the Tsar being able to moderate internal problems, and wanting to prevent those same pressures destroy Germany, and cause a radical state to emerge to make their life horrid.

But overall, whilst the Post-WW1 theories may change, I'm not entirely convinced that a follow-up war isn't going to happen, short of German Jainism becoming the dominant school of thought in Germany after WW1.

Even if we assume that WW1 has different triggers, I doubt we're going to see Germany and France on the same side - and as a result, one or the other will be dealt harsh terms because at the time the consequences of those harsh terms weren't expected, or if they were, those expectations were ignored. Leading to at least one radical economic climate that leads to a radical state.

I would say that presumes a mass murder of butterflies. Yes, the underlying social pressures and many other factors that led to WW1 are intact, but a century after the PoD, so much is certain to have changed - we only don't know in which direction.

Let me just pick one possibility. The drop which caused the overflow into WW1 IOTL was an assassination by a nationalist terrorist. I'll not only say that, a full century after the PoD, we'd have different people walking on the face of the earth and thus probably also different acts of terrorism in Bosnia, as you might counter that that wouldn't change much in the long run. But let's stay with individual assassinations more generally. Let's assume "No Marx" causes, more or less, instead of a relatively unified labour and revolutionary movement, three different strands in Germany alone:

• the majority of the workers are going to organise themselves in, and vote for as soon as they are allowed, some sort of Lasallean Labour Party, which advocates shorter workdays, universal (male) suffrage, freedom of coalition, and state support for the creation of worker co-operatives, but lacks the internationalism which Marx emphasised, and is possibly rather supportive of Prussian unificiation of Germany, and maybe at least temporally tolerant of colonial expansion and the kind of imperialism which was en vogue around the time (it probably features right and left wings, while the right wing is more pro-imperialist, the left wing might borrow some theory from the French labour movement, which is likely more dominated by some sort of post-Proudhonist mutualism);
• to the extent to which the former arrange themselves with the Prussian project, devoutly Catholic workers are going to organise themselves in their own trade unions instead and vote Zentrum, very much like IOTL;
• while radical revolutionaries, who might not even share OTL's close ties with the labour movement at all, might lean almost exclusively towards some brand of anarchism. They are going to be as numerous as IOTL, but without many radical revolutionaries being absorbed into social democracy, which reigned them in as best it could, they're going to run around in all sorts of free anarchist associations, persecuted by the state, and attempting to undermine and hit back against said stat

Are you with me so far?
Now, isn't it well within the range of the plausible that one of these additional anarchists, many of whom will prefer individual terrorism as a political strategy over participation in elections and unionization, attempts to and even succeeds in killing Kaiser Wilhelm II, maybe even well before 1914?

With a different Kaiser, I'm not sure German-British relations escalate to the point of OTL, I'm not sure German-Russian relations deteriorate as they did, and I'm not sure the 1914 blank cheque for Austria-Hungary is issued. German-French relations are certainly tense, and German-British ones aren't going to be cordial, either, but without Willy 2, I could imagine an entirely different WW1, probably even quite a few years later, and maybe one that's so different from OTL that we wouldn't recognise it, both in terms of who sides with whom and in terms of military technologies, strategies etc.

And from there, few roads might lead to a plausible WW2.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I would say that presumes a mass murder of butterflies. Yes, the underlying social pressures and many other factors that led to WW1 are intact, but a century after the PoD, so much is certain to have changed - we only don't know in which direction.

Let me just pick one possibility. The drop which caused the overflow into WW1 IOTL was an assassination by a nationalist terrorist. I'll not only say that, a full century after the PoD, we'd have different people walking on the face of the earth and thus probably also different acts of terrorism in Bosnia, as you might counter that that wouldn't change much in the long run. But let's stay with individual assassinations more generally. Let's assume "No Marx" causes, more or less, instead of a relatively unified labour and revolutionary movement, three different strands in Germany alone:

• the majority of the workers are going to organise themselves in, and vote for as soon as they are allowed, some sort of Lasallean Labour Party, which advocates shorter workdays, universal (male) suffrage, freedom of coalition, and state support for the creation of worker co-operatives, but lacks the internationalism which Marx emphasised, and is possibly rather supportive of Prussian unificiation of Germany, and maybe at least temporally tolerant of colonial expansion and the kind of imperialism which was en vogue around the time (it probably features right and left wings, while the right wing is more pro-imperialist, the left wing might borrow some theory from the French labour movement, which is likely more dominated by some sort of post-Proudhonist mutualism);
• to the extent to which the former arrange themselves with the Prussian project, devoutly Catholic workers are going to organise themselves in their own trade unions instead and vote Zentrum, very much like IOTL;
• while radical revolutionaries, who might not even share OTL's close ties with the labour movement at all, might lean almost exclusively towards some brand of anarchism. They are going to be as numerous as IOTL, but without many radical revolutionaries being absorbed into social democracy, which reigned them in as best it could, they're going to run around in all sorts of free anarchist associations, persecuted by the state, and attempting to undermine and hit back against said stat

Are you with me so far?
Now, isn't it well within the range of the plausible that one of these additional anarchists, many of whom will prefer individual terrorism as a political strategy over participation in elections and unionization, attempts to and even succeeds in killing Kaiser Wilhelm II, maybe even well before 1914?

With a different Kaiser, I'm not sure German-British relations escalate to the point of OTL, I'm not sure German-Russian relations deteriorate as they did, and I'm not sure the 1914 blank cheque for Austria-Hungary is issued. German-French relations are certainly tense, and German-British ones aren't going to be cordial, either, but without Willy 2, I could imagine an entirely different WW1, probably even quite a few years later, and maybe one that's so different from OTL that we wouldn't recognise it, both in terms of who sides with whom and in terms of military technologies, strategies etc.

And from there, few roads might lead to a plausible WW2.

I don't actually disagree with this, and perhaps it appears otherwise due to some frankly poor wording on my part. I entirely agree with almost unrecognisable allegiances, but one near-universal truism since the fall of the Carolingians is that France and Germany are not on the same side in these conflicts. (I mean, it'd be a great twist to see otherwise, don't get me wrong). Each war leading to burdensome penalties on the loser, leading back to a WW2 scenario. I won't deny that (uncharacteristically) I'm being more deterministic than I'm comfortable with, but what is going to prevent harsh terms emerging? A later war with potentially more brutal technologies and strategies unused against Europeans? That seems to be a reason for harsher terms.

Perhaps I'm being too "ATL-Surgical" in how I see a removal of Marx, and perhaps his theories are more relevant that I appreciate to the start of WW1, but I don't actually disagree with you on the range of possibilities, just on what is most probable.

(Also, dude, I appreciate what you're saying, but you came across patronising in parts there).

 

[Salvador79]

I don't actually disagree with this, and perhaps it appears otherwise due to some frankly poor wording on my part. I entirely agree with almost unrecognisable allegiances, but one near-universal truism since the fall of the Carolingians is that France and Germany are not on the same side in these conflicts. (I mean, it'd be a great twist to see otherwise, don't get me wrong). Each war leading to burdensome penalties on the loser, leading back to a WW2 scenario. I won't deny that (uncharacteristically) I'm being more deterministic than I'm comfortable with, but what is going to prevent harsh terms emerging? A later war with potentially more brutal technologies and strategies unused against Europeans? That seems to be a reason for harsher terms.

Perhaps I'm being too "ATL-Surgical" in how I see a removal of Marx, and perhaps his theories are more relevant that I appreciate to the start of WW1, but I don't actually disagree with you on the range of possibilities, just on what is most probable.

(Also, dude, I appreciate what you're saying, but you came across patronising in parts there).

Sorry for sounding patronising!

I agree that "Germany" and "France" had a long history of being enemies. But so did "England/Britain/..." and "France". And a war focusing on colonial theatres of war would go differently in a number of ways.

 

[The Byronic Hero]

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

According to most research, only 5% of humanity is predisposed to lead while the rest, despite griping, prefer to follow.

 

[Max Sinister]

According to most research, only 5% of humanity is predisposed to lead while the rest, despite griping, prefer to follow.

Hm. Source? And what's the deeper reason for this?

 

[Salvador79]

And after WW1, Marxism was a solid barrier in many countries which prevented parts of the labour movement from drifting towards nationalist conceptions (like Sorelianism, nationalist anarcho-syndicalism etc.). Without Marxism keeping those who held the red banners high firmly within the internationalist camp, Mussolini might not have had to split with the Italian Socialists, maybe he could have pulled them towards openly nationalist and even imperialist positions.

 

[Arcavia]

OTL "Marxian" works are written by Engels, but petty disputes between Marx and Bakunin never divide the First International. Thus, the Workers' Movement stays unified for longer than IOTL, though eventually there will probably be a split still between socialists and anarchists.

 

[HUNDmiau]

I'd argue, without marxism, anarchism will be the go to socialist ideology that would rise and shine. In our timeline, they were quite successfull up until the 1900. If we remove Marx, then the Anarchists, which were at certain points in history even the dominant labour movement, would maintain this position, and would change possibly anything. Unlike Marxism, anarchism does not lend itself to reformism or similar things, so something like a social democratic reformist ideology taking over most labour would not happen.

I think we would today either already live in an anarchist state of affairs, or would have much much bigger anarchist movements.

 

[stevej713]

This is my personal opinion - without Marx, international labor movements would still have sprung up in the 19th century, and the geopolitical realities of the 20th century would have resulted in the growth of totalitarian anti-clerical leftist dictatorships regardless. Marxism had an impact on the Soviet Union's rhetoric, but much less of an impact on its methods of governing.

As for the whole anarchy debate - again, I feel that the geopolitical realities of the 20th century would have made this infeasible. The need for collective security in the face of (perceived) aggression often causes people to accept authority.

 

[Salvador79]

I'd argue, without marxism, anarchism will be the go to socialist ideology that would rise and shine. In our timeline, they were quite successfull up until the 1900. If we remove Marx, then the Anarchists, which were at certain points in history even the dominant labour movement, would maintain this position, and would change possibly anything. Unlike Marxism, anarchism does not lend itself to reformism or similar things, so something like a social democratic reformist ideology taking over most labour would not happen.

I think we would today either already live in an anarchist state of affairs, or would have much much bigger anarchist movements.

I think there are a number of assertions in here which are contentious. I'll tackle one which I'm not sure would be addressed by others:
your statement that anarchism does not lend itself to reformism.
That only works if you don't accept the mutualist strand among the co-operative movement as "reformist anarchism" - which I would.
I can absolutely envision a much more co-operativist labour movement and reformist parties of such brand duking it out in the parliaments against conservatives and achieving a lot.

 

[HUNDmiau]

I think there are a number of assertions in here which are contentious. I'll tackle one which I'm not sure would be addressed by others:
your statement that anarchism does not lend itself to reformism.
That only works if you don't accept the mutualist strand among the co-operative movement as "reformist anarchism" - which I would.
I can absolutely envision a much more co-operativist labour movement and reformist parties of such brand duking it out in the parliaments against conservatives and achieving a lot.

I have to agree with you, though it is to me unlikely that Proudhons Mutualism, which itself was not reformist in any way (in that it rejected creating the wanted society through political reforms with the state), would stay dominant. Would you mind pointing out the other "assertation" since I am happy to learn new things.

 

[David T]

Antisemites would still blame the Jews for socialism--only it would be Lassalle rather than Marx...

 

[Salvador79]

@HUNDmiau
The other problematic assumptions, i'd say, are that a) anarchism was dominant in the labour movement at some point (which?) and b) that Marxism "lent itself" to reformism. Reformism came from the grassroots and later from party officials who did not care about Marxism. Marxism assumes capitalism is unreformable and posits inherent laws of doom e.g. the tendential fall of the Profit rate. Social democracy had reformist successes not with Marxist ideological blessing but rather alongside it. Attempts at formulating a reformist Marxism like Hilferding's Stamokap were unconvincing. I'm sure mutualists would be capable of something like that, too.