WI: No Marxism, Christian Socialism dominates the Left

[Art Vandelay]

(Not sure whether this belongs in Before or After 1900, since POD is before but I imagine most effects will be after)

Suppose Marx is never born, becomes an investment banker, or something, and is never in a position to create Marxism.
Christian Socialism becomes the dominant ideology of the Western left.
Depending on how Christian Socialism develops as an ideology, possible effects include:
- more continuing religiosity in the West (leading to more cultural conservatism, social cohesion, and higher birth rates)
- jumbling the political spectrum, with secular/capitalist and, well, Christian/socialist alliances rather than the Christian/capitalist and secular/socialist alignments of OTL
- Russia not having its church and peasantry destroyed in an ill-conceived forced-march toward modernity
- more continued colonies, due to the mission of Christianization
(inspired by this video from Whatifalthist)

Any thoughts?

 

[siddharthasahaindia]

More likely would be Syndicalism or Anarchist Movements or other labour governments, likely just not called Communists. I mean worker's strikes and peasant uprisings existed before Marx.

 

[killertahu22]

I highly doubt it amounts to anything, especially considering that Marxism is an extremely explicit ideology that has very specific goals, including the eventual abolition of the state, money, and social class. Butterflying Marxism gets rid of these ideas in a unified fashion. This does not mean that these ideas won't pop up eventually, but there is no way of guaranteeing that these three components are unified in this new, alternative ideology.

I see a "Christian socialism" being an extremely underdeveloped ideology if I understand the question right, more so acting as an influence on broader left-wing ideologies as opposed to acting as an active force. Basically, it'd probably look more like OTL early 1900s social democracy without the Marxist influence, as opposed to a hegemonic ideology.

EDIT: Also, a lot of what we associate with "communism" IOTL is a product of the USSR and not Marx, so there's that too. Very few of the people who've created the contemporary narrative surrounding communism understand Marx correctly due to the driving force behind it being combatting the USSR, as well as the USSR creating their own system of government independent of Marx, and not spreading reliable knowledge.

Disclaimer: I am both a Christian and a socialist, though I don't necessarily identify as a "Christian Socialist", so this may have influenced my answer.

 

[mjwebb76]

I think the key issue you are ignoring is that most liberal movements in Continental Europe were intensely anti-clerical well into the 20th century. Socialism in turn emerges out of the liberal tradition, in a sense seeking to extend the ideas of political freedom associated with liberalism to the economic realm as well. While Marxism (particularly of the Leninist variety) has some decidedly illiberal elements, it still emerges from this tradition. In the same way, other socialist perspectives tended to be anti-clerical and as such it is difficult to see Christians allying with them.

This opposition between Christianity and liberalism/socialism was somewhat less pronounced in the US and UK where there was at least some tradition of radical political thought melding with radical religious thought (think the Levelers in 1650's England and the Quakers and Abolitionists in both the US and UK). However, these groups tended to be either radical Protestants or Unitarians (i.e. not particularly Christian). It is difficult to see how these perspectives (e.g. Quaker) would really find followers in largely catholic or Orthodox countries, thus limiting the appeal of Quaker-Socialism.

 

[Fulano]

You just need to replace the Marx/Engels duo with the League of the Just team and start from there.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

However, these groups tended to be either radical Protestants or Unitarians (i.e. not particularly Christian). It is difficult to see how these perspectives (e.g. Quaker) would really find followers in largely catholic or Orthodox countries, thus limiting the appeal of Quaker-Socialism.

It doesn't seem inherently more unlikely that peasants in Catholic or Orthodox countries would convert to a radical-Protestantism-cum-socialism than that they'd convert to communism, and the latter happened often enough.

Heck, they might even convert to a radical-Catholicism-cum-socialism, kind of like OTL's liberation theology.

 

[ECavalier]

More likely would be Syndicalism or Anarchist Movements or other labour governments, likely just not called Communists. I mean worker's strikes and peasant uprisings existed before Marx.

Some ideological working class movement was certain to arise with the growth in literacy and disruption of industrialisation but I see no reason an obscure ideology like Syndicalism is more likely to arise than Christian Socialism / Paternalism with such an early POD.

EDIT: Also, a lot of what we associate with "communism" IOTL is a product of the USSR and not Marx, so there's that too. Very few of the people who've created the contemporary narrative surrounding communism understand Marx correctly due to the driving force behind it being combatting the USSR, as well as the USSR creating their own system of government independent of Marx, and not spreading reliable knowledge.

That 20th century Communists outside the direct influence of the USSR (even those who knew Marx personally, like his family) largely chose to follow the Bolshevik’s down the garden path after the revolution (long before anyone had the chance to ‘create the contemporary narrative’) and that other revolutions have tended to follow the same trajectory into tyranny, rather strongly suggest that the problem starts at the source not the interpretation. We’re lucky to live in a world where Marx wasn’t the only founding father of socialism (and indeed in the UK that includes a lot of Christian Socialists).

 

[killertahu22]

Some ideological working class movement was certain to arise with the growth in literacy and disruption of industrialisation but I see no reason an obscure ideology like Syndicalism is more likely to arise than Christian Socialism / Paternalism with such an early POD.

That 20th century Communists outside the direct influence of the USSR (even those who knew Marx personally like his family) largely chose to follow the Bolshevik’s down the garden path after the revolution (long before anyone had the chance to ‘create the contemporary narrative’) and that other revolutions have tended to follow the same trajectory into tyranny, rather strongly suggest that the problem starts at the source not the interpretation. We’re lucky to live in a world where Marx wasn’t the only founding father socialism (and indeed in the UK that includes a lot of Christian Socialists).

At risk of delving into current politics, I don’t think that what you said negates what I said with regards to the OPs post. In fact, I basically agree with your point. All I’m saying is that the rise of the USSR and the subsequent Cold War, and the discourse had throughout it, is what had created our modern idea of communism, which I’m sure is what the OP was asking about. My response is the same in that, without Marxism and the USSR, any Christian Socialist ideology would probably be significantly underdeveloped and would be degrees less influential than OTL Marxist socialism.

 

[killertahu22]

To address the portion of the question about the creation of ITTL secular/capitalist and religious/socialist political dichotomies, I don’t see why this would happen necessarily because IOTL it doesn’t always shake out that way.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Why would Christian Socialism be the dominant in a rapidly secularizing Europe?.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

It doesn't seem inherently more unlikely that peasants in Catholic or Orthodox countries would convert to a radical-Protestantism-cum-socialism than that they'd convert to communism, and the latter happened often enough.

Heck, they might even convert to a radical-Catholicism-cum-socialism, kind of like OTL's liberation theology.

Isn't OTL Liberation theology mostly dead in the water?.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I think the key issue you are ignoring is that most liberal movements in Continental Europe were intensely anti-clerical well into the 20th century. Socialism in turn emerges out of the liberal tradition, in a sense seeking to extend the ideas of political freedom associated with liberalism to the economic realm as well. While Marxism (particularly of the Leninist variety) has some decidedly illiberal elements, it still emerges from this tradition. In the same way, other socialist perspectives tended to be anti-clerical and as such it is difficult to see Christians allying with them.

This opposition between Christianity and liberalism/socialism was somewhat less pronounced in the US and UK where there was at least some tradition of radical political thought melding with radical religious thought (think the Levelers in 1650's England and the Quakers and Abolitionists in both the US and UK). However, these groups tended to be either radical Protestants or Unitarians (i.e. not particularly Christian). It is difficult to see how these perspectives (e.g. Quaker) would really find followers in largely catholic or Orthodox countries, thus limiting the appeal of Quaker-Socialism.

Yeah, it does seem a secular irreligious socialism would hold more appeal than a socialist sect of Christianity. That and OTL socialist Christian movements get to go full Marxist/Liberal Socialist/their similar after sometime, completely shedding off the Christianity.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Isn't OTL Liberation theology mostly dead in the water?.

It's gaining traction, actually, considering current times.

 

[killertahu22]

I am not an expert in the field by any measure but I find it hard to believe that the very people invested in the ideology (the USSR) won't have a good grasp of Marxism and Leninism, it would be like saying Muslim intellectuals don't understand Islam.

I was referring to the American/western leaders of the discourse (no, I am not accusing them of conspiracy or of acting in bad faith). Obviously Soviet Marxist-Leninist were not the ones that were allowed to disseminate their understanding of Marxism in America- it was the Americans who sought to (and, due to tensions and genuine misunderstanding, as well as Stalin/the USSRs crimes, incorrectly understood Marx). I’m not really faulting the people in the west who initially defined Marxism for misunderstanding it, but I am saying that it happened.

There are plenty of people in the west, both for and against Marxism, that understand Marxism well, but the average person likely only knows what they were taught in school, which is the aforementioned “misunderstood” narrative.

But at this point we should move on from this part, I don’t wanna make this current politics and we should be discussing the OPs question

 

[Fabius Maximus]

My response is the same in that, without Marxism and the USSR, any Christian Socialist ideology would probably be significantly underdeveloped and would be degrees less influential than OTL Marxist socialism.

Why is that? If the POD results in people (particularly intellectuals) who would have become Marxists IOTL becoming Christian Socialists instead, there seems no reason why Christian Socialism couldn't become as developed as OTL Marxism.

Why would Christian Socialism be the dominant in a rapidly secularizing Europe?.

Presumably the POD would involve Europe secularising less.

In fact, that could be the POD: with Europe less secular, people who are discontented with the emerging capitalist factory system would be more likely to embrace a Christian Socialism-style belief set than Marxist-style materialism.

Isn't OTL Liberation theology mostly dead in the water?.

It became pretty influential in Latin America (though maybe its influence has declined in recent years, I'm not sure). Regardless, I was just using it as an example of what a Catholic Christian Socialism might look like.

 

[mjwebb76]

Why is that? If the POD results in people (particularly intellectuals) who would have become Marxists IOTL becoming Christian Socialists instead, there seems no reason why Christian Socialism couldn't become as developed as OTL Marxism.

Presumably the POD would involve Europe secularising less.

In fact, that could be the POD: with Europe less secular, people who are discontented with the emerging capitalist factory system would be more likely to embrace a Christian Socialism-style belief set than Marxist-style materialism.

It became pretty influential in Latin America (though maybe its influence has declined in recent years, I'm not sure). Regardless, I was just using it as an example of what a Catholic Christian Socialism might look like.

The references to Liberation Theology misunderstand the history of the Catholic Church. Specifically, Liberation Theology gained traction in the context of (and in some ways as an alternative to) Marxism in the mid-to-late 20th century. It also comes very much from the foment arising out of the Second Vatican Counsel, which amongst many other changes finally changed the churches perspective on democracy and to some extent the French Revolution. To get a viable Christian Socialist alternative to Marxism, I think you would need a POD earlier than the birth of Marx, and specifically, a way to make the French Revolution less anticlerical. I am not sure if this is possible, although I would note that a decent number of priests in the Estates General supported the third estate so perhaps it is possible, particularly if the revolution were not quite so radical. However, by the early 19th century the church had become intensely reactionary and would remain so well into the 20th century.

 

[killertahu22]

Why is that? If the POD results in people (particularly intellectuals) who would have become Marxists IOTL becoming Christian Socialists instead, there seems no reason why Christian Socialism couldn't become as developed as OTL Marxism.

This is a fair enough question, but I highly doubt we see the same amount of support for Christian Socialism that we saw for Marxism. I won't claim to know how the Church worked in the 1800s but I highly doubt that the leaders become Christian Socialists, and without that, it'd be harder to spread the ideology.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Suppose Marx is never born, becomes an investment banker, or something, and is never in a position to create Marxism.
Christian Socialism becomes the dominant ideology of the Western left.

The thing about Marx, his thought existed in the context of Hegelian dialectics and created a 'rational and scientific' framework for revolution, critiquing the system that existed in his time using the study of social sciences. He was a man of his time, and his time was one of questioning the dominant authority and its foundation in medieval Christian civilization.

In short, remove him, and the social trends would just make another person state much the same things as he said. There's Christian strains of socialism like Tolstoy, but I think the trend for science would make people turn towards more secular thought, like the anarchists, or realist philosophers.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Presumably the POD would involve Europe secularising less.

In fact, that could be the POD: with Europe less secular, people who are discontented with the emerging capitalist factory system would be more likely to embrace a Christian Socialism-style belief set than Marxist-style materialism.

An issue that I think Christian Socialism would have that came to me is sectarianism and post-protestant reformation, many churches explicitly said no to politics.

There are OTL still existant Socialists churches but as a previous commenter said, generally Unitarian or in other ways(like Quakers) theologically different enough to not get followers, in other words the same reasons that a Catholic won't convert to protestantism is the same reason a mainline Protestant won't convert to Christian Socialist sect.

Other option is to try to be non-denominational about it, don't talk too much about theology and focus on trying to spread socialism as practice aka an Orthopraxy not an Orthodoxy. But I have seen some of those in OTL just end up with their own theology they won't budge on and become sects to themselves (like a small alliance if Protestant groups).

But let's assume they just focus on and don't budge on promoting Orthopraxy alone, many other churches would always still respond negatively to the competition and they may end up like Quakers in Pennsylvania or some Marxist and Socialist Christian groups that just wither away as other groups with a stronger identity and both an Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy win converts from them.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

Christian socialism already dominates the left in the western world, it's just secular Christianity. Let me explain. The foundation for all modern liberal (in the 18th century sense) thought is all people are equal, deserve a fair shake, should be helped out if circumstances out of their control ruin their lives, have rights that can be violated by an evildoer but never taken away. The major differences between any of these liberal groups is whom they consider to be "real" people deserving of the common wealth. This way of thinking was different from almost everything that had come before, and was based entirely on a foundation of western Christianity. Yes that itself rests on Socratic and Platonic and Indo-European patriarchal ground, but it was its own thing. Marxism may have been the mainstream of the European left up until around the '50's but it was thoroughly discredited in most people's eyes by the USSR. Marxist variants live on big time in some Asian and African political groups, but in the west it's all secular Christian socialism now.