Statism is a pantheon of society, climate, safety, and more. It's definitely irrefutably a religion. People have faith in it and believe in it with contradictory logic and reason. The old abrahamic religions started out the same way. People didn't think of them as religion the way we do now. It was just the way things were. It was an explanation. Most people do the same thing with the state.
Ask someone who brings up society where society is. It's an abstract concept like god.
?? What does this have to do with Islamic thought? If you want to talk about modern Islamic thought then read the theories if Mohammed Abdeh or the books of Sayid Kamal Al Haydari.
Every leader of Islam was educated in Paris. All major commie dictators were educated in Paris or London, from Pol Pot to Mao. Osama bin Laden at first seems to be an exception because he was educated in Riyhad, but his professor was from… LONDON! Modern Islam is a tissue of Marxism with medieval window curtains. Islam and Marxism are like communism and fascism: two identical peas in a pod.
Did you even read Marx or Engles? They literally call for a "stateless" society because the state is seen as a tool for capitalists to manipulate for their own gain.
If you read Marx, you would know a bit about this. Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless, post-scarcity society. A crude example portrayed in fiction (for those who want a rough example) would be the Star Trek universe, especially TNG.
The only way to have any sort of socialism is to have an entity forcing everyone to partake in it, which is exactly what the state is for. You can't have a stateless society that also takes care of everyone, Marx was talking out of his ass.
And yet their students, adherents, and resulting leadership implemented one of the most authoritarian statist nightmares the world has ever seen. Not dissimilar to the new refrain of "in order to save democracy we must act as undemocratically as the law will allow" that the democrats are now serving their base.
If I call for a carless society but operate a dealership that sells 1000s of cars per day, I am likely not to be trusted.
Being logically consistent is a bad thing now? Because they're not mindlessly regurgitating "marxism bad" and instead looking for a deeper critique, they're a Marxist sympathizer? At least be intellectually honest when you're talking about a topic, otherwise you're no better than the rest of the bots that populate this site.
Marxism should be universally viewed with just as much vitriol as fascism is viewed.
Marxism has a higher body count.
You would think that would be a commonly held view on a supposedly freedom loving libertarian subreddit, but that isn't what this place is.
It is just another leftist board like the rest of reddit. It might not be quite as bad though. It is like the Coke Zero of reddit political boards, but it is still a Cola.
Some political philosophies have religious elements, others do not. They are not all equal or interchangeable. It isn't all "just relative".
It isn't necessary for all other political philosophies to be religious in order for Marxism to be religious.
The problem with Marxism is that people don't even really know what it is. All they know is the cartoon version. The shit they read in highschool history books, picked up in college from a Marxist professor, program they saw on PBS or bread tubers on the internet.
Marxism is much like Scientology. Just less obvious.
If you go to a Narconon meeting or other organization that is sponsored by Scientology it seems all sane and based in science at the surface level. They are friendly, seem helpful, seem genuinely interested in helping people.
It isn't until you get into the upper levels that it gets all super wackadoodle and you learn what Thetans really are and who Xenu is. And by that time people are so heavily invested and accustomed to the strange world view that they just sort of accept it and keep playing along.
What makes it harder is that the adherents refuse to acknowledge it is a religion. The point of Marxism is that they took the Hegelian Dialectic and tried to strip it of all its metaphysical characteristics to create Dialectic Materialism, which is what Marxism actually is.
This is why people confuse it with being a economic philosophy... Marx contended that only material forces matter and economics is, partially, the study of how material flows through society.
Because Marx's economics were proven wrong modern Neo-Marxist philosophies happily discard economics almost completely. They don't talk about it anymore. It is considered passe and "modern" approaches reject economy theory as largely unimportant compared to other social forces. And they can do this and still be Marxist because the economics were almost incidental to the ideology, which is based around beliefs in social progression and the destinies of mankind.
Marxism isn't based on logic, that's why each time it fails when practiced, Marxists refuse to believe the system failed and say that wasn't true socialism.
I personally am a libertarian because I'm constantly trying to debunk it (just look at my post history on this sub), and I fail each time to find the cracks in the ideology. Ideas should be constantly subjected to the fire of doubt and questioning. That is what makes them strong. And what differentiates them from religions.
I had already tackled all of these critiques and many others, and I'm happy to say none of them stand a chance against libertarianism. I was honestly expecting to find something more challenging, but if that's all that can be said against the ideology, then we're at a good place.
I am still searching for one solid argument against Ancap, at least one that would make me seriously reconsider my views. I would genuinely welcome it.
For capitalism to exist, it's necessary for private property to exist. For property to exist, it's necessary for justice to be observed, otherwise you could inconsequentially steal somebody else's property. For justice to be fair, it's necessary for it to not be subjected to the laws of free market, in other words it can't change according to demand. This means the State has to exist in order to guarantee the impartiality of the judicial system, which in turn creates the basis for private property and the free accumulation of wealth.
That's why I'm a minarchist and not Ancap. State has to exist, but in a minimal degree.
I genuinely appreciate your effort. But your argument is fundamentally weak. I’ve encountered this same stance countless times. I understand your position, as I was once a minarchist too, but the flaws in that line of reasoning became undeniable as I delved deeper into anarcho-capitalism and its philosophical underpinnings.
Essentially, your claim boils down to this: the survival of private property, and by extension capitalism, hinges on the State's role in maintaining a consistent and impartial justice system. Without the State's control, property rights would collapse, rendering capitalism unsustainable due to the failure to guarantee ownership.
The problem with this is that it all comes down to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You assume that because you've only seen order maintained by the State, no other system of order could exist or function, even though we have, at this very moment, many examples of decentralized systems thriving. The internet itself operates through a network of voluntary protocols without central governance, cryptocurrency like Bitcoin demonstrates a financial system free from state control, and open-source communities like Linux flourish without the need for a top-down authority, all proving that order can emerge organically. Therefore, your argument overlooks the possibility of voluntary, decentralized systems that could uphold justice and property rights without state intervention.
Thus:
Premise 1: For capitalism to exist, it's necessary for private property to exist.
True
Premise 2: For property to exist, it's necessary for justice to be observed, otherwise you could inconsequentially steal somebody else's property.
True
Premise 3: For justice to be fair, it's necessary for it to not be subjected to the laws of free market, in other words, it can't change according to demand.
False
It's exactly the demand for justice that guarantees that a fair and reliable system will emerge, driven by competition and accountability, rather than being monopolized by the State. In a free market, justice services would be subject to the same pressures as any other service, ensuring better quality and more responsiveness to the needs of individuals.
Thus, in your argument, I consider the following the most significant problem of all:
The problem in your reasoning resides in that, in a world where the judicial system is market based, the owners of the different justice companies would still be functioning on a for profit basis, thus making its rulings being determined by a business strategy rather than a genuine interest to serve justice.
Let's give you an example.
In an ancap town with a population of 100, there are 90 catholics and 10 protestants. People in this town litigate a lot, so there's ample space for many justice companies to compete for a percentage of the marketshare. These companies compete to see who makes the wisest and fearest rulings in order to go ahead of competitors.
One day, one of these competitors notice that, whenever there's a litigation between a Catholic and a protestant, ruling always in favor of the catholic is always the best option no matter what: Catholics are the majority, and if other Catholics know about this, this justice company will greatly increase its marketshare against competitors who still rule fair outcomes, because all Catholics, who are majority, will choose this company whenever they're litigating against protestants. Eventually, the other competitors become aware that the only way to recover marketshare is doing the same. Suddenly, justice is determined by whatever is best for business rather than what is fair. And it will keep being like that, because that is the best business strategy. Ruling fairly is just bad business.
And this would happen again and again. With racial groups, religions, social classes... What's great of capitalism is that it always will give you exactly whatever you want. Capitalism doesn't care if it's good for you, or what you will do with it, only if you want it and if you have the money to pay for it. That's for you to decide. And when what you want isn't a fair trial, but an outcome that is favourable to you, there's no justice system anymore, only a conflict of interests that in the end will always bend in favour of the powerful and the majority against the powerless and the few.
The problem in your argument is this: you're taking a narrow scenario and treating all outcomes as determined by this limited case. Just because one small set of circumstances in the situation you’ve described unfolded in a particular way—while indeed possible in an anarcho-capitalist society—, it doesn't mean that this must be the same outcome in every scenario.
The issue you're describing is exactly the problem with the Economic Calculation Problem (ECP). That is, you're assuming that one scenario dictates all others, which mirrors the same flaw in centralized systems where a single authority attempts to impose uniform solutions without the flexibility and adaptability of market-driven processes. Neither you nor I can possess the full knowledge to make perfect decisions, as the information is dispersed and unreachable without the price signals that markets provide. Thus, you are overlooking the key advantage of an anarcho-capitalist society: flexibility, which corrects and adapts far more efficiently than a rigid state-controlled system.
The scenario you described is exactly what already happens under government rule. Government biases, often influenced by the majority or those in power, shape rulings, and without the flexibility of competition, there’s no corrective mechanism. In a free market, companies that act unfairly face reputational damage and lose business, whereas in a state-run system, corruption and bias remain unchecked, leading to entrenched inequality.
And this would happen again and again. With racial groups, religions, social classes...
This is happening right now. This is what has already happened throughout history under state-controlled systems, since ever, where governments have consistently favored certain racial groups, religions, or social classes to maintain power. Thus wars, genocides, slavery, apartheid, forced relocations, and inquisitions have been the tragic outcomes of this bias, all enabled by the unchecked authority of the State.
Again, it boils down to this, which I see as the core flaw in your argument: what makes you believe that the State has the slightest capacity—the slightest—to determine what Justice truly is? You might argue that the market doesn’t inherently know either, which I won’t dispute, but at least in an anarcho-capitalist system, the pursuit of justice is shaped by competition, accountability, and consumer demand, not dictated by the arbitrary whims of bureaucrats. Unlike the State, which monopolizes power and can impose its version of "justice" without consequence (which often in History were as far from ideal justice as possible: the Spanish Inquisition, the Atlantic Slave Trade, Jim Crow segregation laws, Nazi racial laws, Stalinist purges, and the Rwandan Genocide), the market must constantly adjust, adapt, and improve based on the needs and principles of the individuals it serves.
Thus, I reinstate the question: what makes you believe that the State has even the slightest capacity—the slightest—to determine what Justice truly is, when History itself overwhelmingly demonstrates the opposite?
James Lindsay has your answers. He has dozens and dozens of hours of it, and it's very thorough and enlightening.
The short answer is that every religion is effectively and ideological supposition, which is also what Marxism is. The long answer takes a winding course through gnosticism and Hegel and Böhme.
Much like theocracy is a governmental system based on religion, Marxism is a religion based on a utopian governmental system.
It strives for a utopian ideal that cannot be tangibly implemented, it has many institutions devoted to it (universities) and its followers are constantly trying to convert you to their ideology.
It’s obviously a loose interpretation of the word religion, but instead of gods, they worship the state, and there you have communism.
You can convince me out of anarchocapitalism, but you cannot convince a Marxist out of Marxism, precisely because Marxists don't engage with reason, but with faith.
It’s entirely possible for someone to be raised in a Marxist country, see the outcomes of Marxism on their community, and then with age change mentalities. At the end these are just economic systems, people will typically just side with the one they think they would do best in. I was right leaning as a kid, and as I grew I became more left leaning. Other kids start left and grow to adopt right beliefs. Switching sides isn’t really a rare thing.
You have 2 kinds of Marxists in a communist nation. The true believers aka "useful idiots". After the revolution is secure they are dangerous to the regime and they get imprisoned and/or shot.
Then you have the elites. The "Marxists" who are in control and only there for power and wealth. They'll never change and never leave because they're sociopaths who have profited from the chaos they helped cause. We are specifically discussing these 2 groups. Everyone else is a hapless victim of circumstance.
Jesus, even a cursory understanding of the history of Marxism and it's implementation would make the answer to this question obvious. Do some reading and try again.
Because both are based solely on belief with nothing to show for I would assume. A bit far fetched but judging by some behaviors observed by the marxist groupthink I would be tempted to agree more than I'd like to admit.
Discounting the claim that Marxism is a religion (it's not, but that's not relevant to my point here), but ~30% of the world's population is Christian. There is no way more than 30% of the world's population are Marxists (let alone enough of the population for Christianity's numbers to be "not even close"). If you asked any random person on the street I doubt very many would be able to accurately describe what Marxism is and far fewer would ever claim they were a Marxist
How are we defining Marxist? China is 20% of world pop, and I'm sure an argument could be made they're Marxist. Idk what argument, but it doesnt sound as crazy as the OOP.
Also, being Christian doesnt preclude being marxist. So it's not like 30% Christians means there are only 70% potential Marxists.
Not that I'm hysterical about Marxists, even if it were true it wouldn't really matter. 99% of people have no influence over the world anyway.
Actually yeah I had that thought in the back of my head and never realized that's exactly what it is but i feel like they went so far left on the spectrum they've come full circle and ended up being similar to right and left
It's not a religion in the sense of explaining where you go when you die or giving a metaphysical explanation for concepts like destiny or the origin of the universe. It's also avoided the pitfall previous religions fell into of encouraging adherents to declare their belief and affiliation--many people who are downstream of either Marx or Hegal have no idea that is where their ideas originate.
But it absolutely is a religion in terms of being a set of related belief systems which people rigidly adopt as factual beyond reproach and therefore use the justify all kinds of authoritarianism and violence against non-believers.
Getting a bad answer from a random on the street isn't a good test for the same reason that clues on Jeopardy about stories in the bible are a common failure points for contestants on that show. Not that many people (proportionally) care enough about the origin or technical details of their belief system to have studied and retained them. They just have their belief system and haven't considered changing it because that's more difficult and feels less immediately useful than working on their proximate problems.
You don't need a "sky daddy" or church to have a religion. Nonthiestic religions are still religions.
People confuse atheism with "not believing in God".. it isn't atheism if you simply replace one belief system with another one. This is why the "new atheist movement" from the early 2000s fell apart. It started off as a real atheist movement, even though it was very naive. After it picked up steam, however, it quickly became overran by brainwashed Critical Theory/Woke types, which is a form of Neo-Marxism that most of them picked up while being indoctrinated in university classes.
What is more is that Marxism is a form of Young Hegelianism. It is derived from Hegelianism much in the same what that Christianity was derived from Judaism.
Hegel, in effect, tried to create a new German folk religion to counter act what he saw as the Orientalization of German society under the influence of Christianity. In essence trying to make Germany/Prussia more German. It incorporated elements of other earlier and contemporary ideologies, like bits and pieces of Platonism, Christianity, and Alchemy.
It is a form of Historicism which presupposes that originally there was a sort of perfect form of everything that became corrupted over time. Kinda like with Plato where he believed there was a sort of perfect kingdom that existed and it became corrupted and worse over time.
And over time as human society evolves and through struggles and conflicts through a dialectical process were you have thesis contending with the antithesis which then is resolved into the synthesis that is neither thesis or antithesis, but contained elements of both that are purified by the conflict.
And in this way as society evolves the "godhead", which is more or less the collective mind of mankind, approaches closer to perfection and self awareness.
And under this model the state is the physical embodiment of this sort of will or collective consciousness. He believed that in order for society to evolve and progress you needed institutions to direct that change... which are all part of how a state functions.
Marxism is directly derived from this. Although they sought to purge all the metaphysical and spiritual elements from Hegelianism. Which, formally, is called Dialectical Materialism.
It is "materialism" because it says that what matters in society is the material reality, the economics. Not some metaphysical spirit that exists in the collective imagination of mankind.
But you see plenty of elements poking through.
To drive the point home:
The equivalent to "Garden of Eden" in Marxism s "Primitive Communism". In which every person worked for the collective good of their tribe in perfect harmony.
The Original Sin of Marxism is "Division of Labor". When you separated the thinkers (masters) from the doers (slaves) that is when people started become corrupted and economic struggle between classes began.
The Eschatology (end time theories) of Marxism is Communism. This is a utopia stage of social evolution were the state nullifies itself through the final dialectical process and humans are physically and mentally transformed into "New Man" or "Social Man" (etc) were people work together as equals with no class distinctions.
And you have moral obligations that you are required to fulfill if you want ultimate salvation of mankind. Especially in modern forms of Marxism were they have decided that there is only two possible end-states of humanity.. which is either Fascism (hell) or Communism (heaven).
All of this depends 100% on Faith.
There is no proof for any of it.
The primitive communism, the dialectical process of history, the effect/origins/resolution of class conflict, and communism is all just pure conjecture. They believe in it simply because they want to believe in it.
If you don't want to call it a "religion" because that word is too loaded or you don't like it... that is fine, but it is sure as hell a faith.
Yeah, even scandanavian countries which Bernie tries to self-declare as socialist marxist havens actually self-purport as capitalist countries "with a social safety net".
I would choose the original Marxists over today’s so-called "cultural Marxists" any day. Most modern leftists don’t even grasp what socialism or communism are actually about. It’s as if they stripped away the few redeeming aspects of Marxism and created this monstrosity known as leftism, whose only purpose is destruction, denial, and cynicism.
It's as if the system couldn't tolerate the economic critique but still allows for "safe" discourse (which is of course deranged, the main problem for a big part of the globe is getting basic necessities).
Think of the white, rich feminists. All subversive content was removed and all that is left if being a "girl boss".
Can't remember the name of the fabulous book I read a couple years ago, but he made the argument that liberalism is a religion. I agree based on the idea that a religion is something you base your identity around, convert others too, create a ethos etc. almost the entire world values the individual over the group at this point. This led to feminism, equal rights etc. fascinating right but I would call this easily the world's biggest religion
Well, different forms of collectivism has been the dominant political ideologies in human history as far as we know.
Individualism is the rarity, a western idea developed, arguably, through the middle ages and getting strong thanks to (british?/anglo-saxon?) Liberalism in the last three centuries.
Modern Marxism has become entirely a religious phenomenon, with its inquisitors lurking everywhere: governments, universities, schools, families, and even churches. A virus that spread around, zombie-like masses endlessly parroting platitudes in their forever hive-mind behavior.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
He's wrong. The largest religion is statism.
dagoofmut@reddit
Most statism is based on Marxism nowadays
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
There are 2 ideologies. Socialism gets rebranded over and over and over as different things. Statism and socialism are the same thing.
ConscientiousPath@reddit
I mean, that's like saying the largest classical religion is "the Abrahamic religion" and not Christianity. Correct, but not really a correction
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
Statism is a pantheon of society, climate, safety, and more. It's definitely irrefutably a religion. People have faith in it and believe in it with contradictory logic and reason. The old abrahamic religions started out the same way. People didn't think of them as religion the way we do now. It was just the way things were. It was an explanation. Most people do the same thing with the state.
Ask someone who brings up society where society is. It's an abstract concept like god.
chmendez@reddit (OP)
Jung tried to explain it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/s/RsEq2cSZCd
chmendez@reddit (OP)
I fully agree.
bilcox@reddit
I'm pretty sure Christianity and Islam each have more.
Fantastic_Cheek2561@reddit
You might be shocked to learn that Marxism is just industrial Christianity. And modern Islam is just Marxism plus Allah.
qatamat99@reddit
Tell me you don’t know Islam without telling me you don’t know about Islam
Fantastic_Cheek2561@reddit
Where did Osama bin Laden go to University? And who was his influential professor? Hmmm?
qatamat99@reddit
?? What does this have to do with Islamic thought? If you want to talk about modern Islamic thought then read the theories if Mohammed Abdeh or the books of Sayid Kamal Al Haydari.
Fantastic_Cheek2561@reddit
Both Marxists. My god you’re dumb.
qatamat99@reddit
Thank you for the discussion. 25:63
ReasonableResearch9@reddit
I upvoted you for being correct sir or ma'am.
bilcox@reddit
I would be surprised to learn that since I presume to know about Marxism and its relation to Christianity.
Please, say more. My German is mediocre, so I rely on translations of Hegel's writings.
Fantastic_Cheek2561@reddit
Every leader of Islam was educated in Paris. All major commie dictators were educated in Paris or London, from Pol Pot to Mao. Osama bin Laden at first seems to be an exception because he was educated in Riyhad, but his professor was from… LONDON! Modern Islam is a tissue of Marxism with medieval window curtains. Islam and Marxism are like communism and fascism: two identical peas in a pod.
Sea_Journalist_3615@reddit
It's weird you are getting down voted. Brigades probably.
DravenTor@reddit
Considering Marxism replaces god with State, this may not be far off.
MROLOQ@reddit
Nietzsche says: 👍
Vincent_VanGoGo@reddit
China has entered chat
megalodongolus@reddit
Idk, a lot of people in china are members of the part because they’re trying to advance their careers, not necessarily because they believe in it.
Hentai_Yoshi@reddit
Why is Marxism considered a religion, and not other political philosophies? I’m not a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination, but this is silly.
trufus_for_youfus@reddit
Idolization of the state would be a more apt statement.
a-k-martin@reddit
Did you even read Marx or Engles? They literally call for a "stateless" society because the state is seen as a tool for capitalists to manipulate for their own gain.
bobbybouchier@reddit
If anything this really just proves his much of a religious belief it is. How could such a system exist without a state? Straight fairytale.
a-k-martin@reddit
If you read Marx, you would know a bit about this. Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless, post-scarcity society. A crude example portrayed in fiction (for those who want a rough example) would be the Star Trek universe, especially TNG.
bobbybouchier@reddit
I have read Marc and I am aware of this…as I said, straight fiction.
AlcoholicsAnonymous6@reddit
The only way to have any sort of socialism is to have an entity forcing everyone to partake in it, which is exactly what the state is for. You can't have a stateless society that also takes care of everyone, Marx was talking out of his ass.
trufus_for_youfus@reddit
And yet their students, adherents, and resulting leadership implemented one of the most authoritarian statist nightmares the world has ever seen. Not dissimilar to the new refrain of "in order to save democracy we must act as undemocratically as the law will allow" that the democrats are now serving their base.
If I call for a carless society but operate a dealership that sells 1000s of cars per day, I am likely not to be trusted.
P1xelEnthusiast@reddit
I knew that r/libertarian would deliver with a "I am not a Marxist, but...." post that was sympathetic to Marxism.
Thanks for being a bonafide libertarian. This place always delivers solid entertainment.
Recently I have enjoyed the other hit single on here "I am not for price controls, but....."
ThatGuy721@reddit
Being logically consistent is a bad thing now? Because they're not mindlessly regurgitating "marxism bad" and instead looking for a deeper critique, they're a Marxist sympathizer? At least be intellectually honest when you're talking about a topic, otherwise you're no better than the rest of the bots that populate this site.
P1xelEnthusiast@reddit
Marxism should be universally viewed with just as much vitriol as fascism is viewed.
Marxism has a higher body count.
You would think that would be a commonly held view on a supposedly freedom loving libertarian subreddit, but that isn't what this place is.
It is just another leftist board like the rest of reddit. It might not be quite as bad though. It is like the Coke Zero of reddit political boards, but it is still a Cola.
___miki@reddit
Marxists had children throughout history. Just to let you know.
natermer@reddit
Some political philosophies have religious elements, others do not. They are not all equal or interchangeable. It isn't all "just relative".
It isn't necessary for all other political philosophies to be religious in order for Marxism to be religious.
The problem with Marxism is that people don't even really know what it is. All they know is the cartoon version. The shit they read in highschool history books, picked up in college from a Marxist professor, program they saw on PBS or bread tubers on the internet.
Marxism is much like Scientology. Just less obvious.
If you go to a Narconon meeting or other organization that is sponsored by Scientology it seems all sane and based in science at the surface level. They are friendly, seem helpful, seem genuinely interested in helping people.
It isn't until you get into the upper levels that it gets all super wackadoodle and you learn what Thetans really are and who Xenu is. And by that time people are so heavily invested and accustomed to the strange world view that they just sort of accept it and keep playing along.
What makes it harder is that the adherents refuse to acknowledge it is a religion. The point of Marxism is that they took the Hegelian Dialectic and tried to strip it of all its metaphysical characteristics to create Dialectic Materialism, which is what Marxism actually is.
This is why people confuse it with being a economic philosophy... Marx contended that only material forces matter and economics is, partially, the study of how material flows through society.
Because Marx's economics were proven wrong modern Neo-Marxist philosophies happily discard economics almost completely. They don't talk about it anymore. It is considered passe and "modern" approaches reject economy theory as largely unimportant compared to other social forces. And they can do this and still be Marxist because the economics were almost incidental to the ideology, which is based around beliefs in social progression and the destinies of mankind.
___miki@reddit
What marxists do you read to do this kind of claim?
LicenciadoPena@reddit
Marxism isn't based on logic, that's why each time it fails when practiced, Marxists refuse to believe the system failed and say that wasn't true socialism.
I personally am a libertarian because I'm constantly trying to debunk it (just look at my post history on this sub), and I fail each time to find the cracks in the ideology. Ideas should be constantly subjected to the fire of doubt and questioning. That is what makes them strong. And what differentiates them from religions.
flamingo9911@reddit
https://hiperfuentes.blogspot.com/2023/02/la-metafisica-del-liberalismo.html?m=1
LicenciadoPena@reddit
Thank you. Just read it.
I had already tackled all of these critiques and many others, and I'm happy to say none of them stand a chance against libertarianism. I was honestly expecting to find something more challenging, but if that's all that can be said against the ideology, then we're at a good place.
MROLOQ@reddit
I am still searching for one solid argument against Ancap, at least one that would make me seriously reconsider my views. I would genuinely welcome it.
LicenciadoPena@reddit
Against Ancap? Here I go:
For capitalism to exist, it's necessary for private property to exist. For property to exist, it's necessary for justice to be observed, otherwise you could inconsequentially steal somebody else's property. For justice to be fair, it's necessary for it to not be subjected to the laws of free market, in other words it can't change according to demand. This means the State has to exist in order to guarantee the impartiality of the judicial system, which in turn creates the basis for private property and the free accumulation of wealth.
That's why I'm a minarchist and not Ancap. State has to exist, but in a minimal degree.
MROLOQ@reddit
I genuinely appreciate your effort. But your argument is fundamentally weak. I’ve encountered this same stance countless times. I understand your position, as I was once a minarchist too, but the flaws in that line of reasoning became undeniable as I delved deeper into anarcho-capitalism and its philosophical underpinnings.
Essentially, your claim boils down to this: the survival of private property, and by extension capitalism, hinges on the State's role in maintaining a consistent and impartial justice system. Without the State's control, property rights would collapse, rendering capitalism unsustainable due to the failure to guarantee ownership.
The problem with this is that it all comes down to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You assume that because you've only seen order maintained by the State, no other system of order could exist or function, even though we have, at this very moment, many examples of decentralized systems thriving. The internet itself operates through a network of voluntary protocols without central governance, cryptocurrency like Bitcoin demonstrates a financial system free from state control, and open-source communities like Linux flourish without the need for a top-down authority, all proving that order can emerge organically. Therefore, your argument overlooks the possibility of voluntary, decentralized systems that could uphold justice and property rights without state intervention.
Thus:
It's exactly the demand for justice that guarantees that a fair and reliable system will emerge, driven by competition and accountability, rather than being monopolized by the State. In a free market, justice services would be subject to the same pressures as any other service, ensuring better quality and more responsiveness to the needs of individuals.
Thus, in your argument, I consider the following the most significant problem of all:
The State doesn't know what Justice is.
LicenciadoPena@reddit
The problem in your reasoning resides in that, in a world where the judicial system is market based, the owners of the different justice companies would still be functioning on a for profit basis, thus making its rulings being determined by a business strategy rather than a genuine interest to serve justice.
Let's give you an example.
In an ancap town with a population of 100, there are 90 catholics and 10 protestants. People in this town litigate a lot, so there's ample space for many justice companies to compete for a percentage of the marketshare. These companies compete to see who makes the wisest and fearest rulings in order to go ahead of competitors.
One day, one of these competitors notice that, whenever there's a litigation between a Catholic and a protestant, ruling always in favor of the catholic is always the best option no matter what: Catholics are the majority, and if other Catholics know about this, this justice company will greatly increase its marketshare against competitors who still rule fair outcomes, because all Catholics, who are majority, will choose this company whenever they're litigating against protestants. Eventually, the other competitors become aware that the only way to recover marketshare is doing the same. Suddenly, justice is determined by whatever is best for business rather than what is fair. And it will keep being like that, because that is the best business strategy. Ruling fairly is just bad business.
And this would happen again and again. With racial groups, religions, social classes... What's great of capitalism is that it always will give you exactly whatever you want. Capitalism doesn't care if it's good for you, or what you will do with it, only if you want it and if you have the money to pay for it. That's for you to decide. And when what you want isn't a fair trial, but an outcome that is favourable to you, there's no justice system anymore, only a conflict of interests that in the end will always bend in favour of the powerful and the majority against the powerless and the few.
MROLOQ@reddit
The problem in your argument is this: you're taking a narrow scenario and treating all outcomes as determined by this limited case. Just because one small set of circumstances in the situation you’ve described unfolded in a particular way—while indeed possible in an anarcho-capitalist society—, it doesn't mean that this must be the same outcome in every scenario.
The issue you're describing is exactly the problem with the Economic Calculation Problem (ECP). That is, you're assuming that one scenario dictates all others, which mirrors the same flaw in centralized systems where a single authority attempts to impose uniform solutions without the flexibility and adaptability of market-driven processes. Neither you nor I can possess the full knowledge to make perfect decisions, as the information is dispersed and unreachable without the price signals that markets provide. Thus, you are overlooking the key advantage of an anarcho-capitalist society: flexibility, which corrects and adapts far more efficiently than a rigid state-controlled system.
The scenario you described is exactly what already happens under government rule. Government biases, often influenced by the majority or those in power, shape rulings, and without the flexibility of competition, there’s no corrective mechanism. In a free market, companies that act unfairly face reputational damage and lose business, whereas in a state-run system, corruption and bias remain unchecked, leading to entrenched inequality.
This is happening right now. This is what has already happened throughout history under state-controlled systems, since ever, where governments have consistently favored certain racial groups, religions, or social classes to maintain power. Thus wars, genocides, slavery, apartheid, forced relocations, and inquisitions have been the tragic outcomes of this bias, all enabled by the unchecked authority of the State.
Again, it boils down to this, which I see as the core flaw in your argument: what makes you believe that the State has the slightest capacity—the slightest—to determine what Justice truly is? You might argue that the market doesn’t inherently know either, which I won’t dispute, but at least in an anarcho-capitalist system, the pursuit of justice is shaped by competition, accountability, and consumer demand, not dictated by the arbitrary whims of bureaucrats. Unlike the State, which monopolizes power and can impose its version of "justice" without consequence (which often in History were as far from ideal justice as possible: the Spanish Inquisition, the Atlantic Slave Trade, Jim Crow segregation laws, Nazi racial laws, Stalinist purges, and the Rwandan Genocide), the market must constantly adjust, adapt, and improve based on the needs and principles of the individuals it serves.
Thus, I reinstate the question: what makes you believe that the State has even the slightest capacity—the slightest—to determine what Justice truly is, when History itself overwhelmingly demonstrates the opposite?
aphitt@reddit
So what are the points that would convince someone to believe in libertarianism?
AutoModerator@reddit
Reminder: 'not-true'-socialism has killed 100 million people. But wait, that was actually state capitalism! Carry on, comrade!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
WolffgangVW@reddit
James Lindsay has your answers. He has dozens and dozens of hours of it, and it's very thorough and enlightening.
The short answer is that every religion is effectively and ideological supposition, which is also what Marxism is. The long answer takes a winding course through gnosticism and Hegel and Böhme.
AGallopingMonkey@reddit
Much like theocracy is a governmental system based on religion, Marxism is a religion based on a utopian governmental system.
It strives for a utopian ideal that cannot be tangibly implemented, it has many institutions devoted to it (universities) and its followers are constantly trying to convert you to their ideology.
It’s obviously a loose interpretation of the word religion, but instead of gods, they worship the state, and there you have communism.
MROLOQ@reddit
Even though I'm agnostic, it wouldn't surprise me if the Devil's true religion turned out to be socialism/communism.
MROLOQ@reddit
You can convince me out of anarchocapitalism, but you cannot convince a Marxist out of Marxism, precisely because Marxists don't engage with reason, but with faith.
afitz_7@reddit
Excellent point about faith over reason.
Temporary_Angle2392@reddit
Sure you could, lots of Cubans grew up disagreeing with their leader and moved to the US.
gotbock@reddit
They were never Marxists. Hence, why they fled.
Temporary_Angle2392@reddit
It’s entirely possible for someone to be raised in a Marxist country, see the outcomes of Marxism on their community, and then with age change mentalities. At the end these are just economic systems, people will typically just side with the one they think they would do best in. I was right leaning as a kid, and as I grew I became more left leaning. Other kids start left and grow to adopt right beliefs. Switching sides isn’t really a rare thing.
gotbock@reddit
You have 2 kinds of Marxists in a communist nation. The true believers aka "useful idiots". After the revolution is secure they are dangerous to the regime and they get imprisoned and/or shot.
Then you have the elites. The "Marxists" who are in control and only there for power and wealth. They'll never change and never leave because they're sociopaths who have profited from the chaos they helped cause. We are specifically discussing these 2 groups. Everyone else is a hapless victim of circumstance.
MROLOQ@reddit
From my own experience dealing with Cubans and Venezuelans, they are far less likely to be Marxists than American or European leftists.
JagneStormskull@reddit
Mine too.
gotbock@reddit
Jesus, even a cursory understanding of the history of Marxism and it's implementation would make the answer to this question obvious. Do some reading and try again.
mostlikelynotasnail@reddit
I think it rather fits the definition of cult
diterman@reddit
Because both are based solely on belief with nothing to show for I would assume. A bit far fetched but judging by some behaviors observed by the marxist groupthink I would be tempted to agree more than I'd like to admit.
LawsOfEconomics@reddit
I usually go with Statism or Collectivism.
ClapDemCheeks1@reddit
Probably the largest growing religion, yes.
But not the largest in number at the moment.
jamin007@reddit
Discounting the claim that Marxism is a religion (it's not, but that's not relevant to my point here), but ~30% of the world's population is Christian. There is no way more than 30% of the world's population are Marxists (let alone enough of the population for Christianity's numbers to be "not even close"). If you asked any random person on the street I doubt very many would be able to accurately describe what Marxism is and far fewer would ever claim they were a Marxist
What are we doing here?
goodheartedalcoholic@reddit
How are we defining Marxist? China is 20% of world pop, and I'm sure an argument could be made they're Marxist. Idk what argument, but it doesnt sound as crazy as the OOP.
Also, being Christian doesnt preclude being marxist. So it's not like 30% Christians means there are only 70% potential Marxists.
Not that I'm hysterical about Marxists, even if it were true it wouldn't really matter. 99% of people have no influence over the world anyway.
potataoboi@reddit
China is an authoritarian corporatocracy poorly disguised as a communist democracy
bravehotelfoxtrot@reddit
Isn’t “authoritarian corporatocracy” just a fancy way of saying “state-controlled economy?”
Isn’t a state-controlled economy essentially as close to “communism” as anyone ever gets on a scale of greater than like 100 people?
potataoboi@reddit
Actually yeah I had that thought in the back of my head and never realized that's exactly what it is but i feel like they went so far left on the spectrum they've come full circle and ended up being similar to right and left
bravehotelfoxtrot@reddit
What do “right” and “left” mean?
potataoboi@reddit
Like with how fascism is so far right it ends up being like China is but with a different flavor
goodheartedalcoholic@reddit
But again, what constitutes Marxism?
Vincent_VanGoGo@reddit
China's population is 1.4B Venezuela 28.3M Christians 2.3B Islam 1.9B
ConscientiousPath@reddit
It's not a religion in the sense of explaining where you go when you die or giving a metaphysical explanation for concepts like destiny or the origin of the universe. It's also avoided the pitfall previous religions fell into of encouraging adherents to declare their belief and affiliation--many people who are downstream of either Marx or Hegal have no idea that is where their ideas originate.
But it absolutely is a religion in terms of being a set of related belief systems which people rigidly adopt as factual beyond reproach and therefore use the justify all kinds of authoritarianism and violence against non-believers.
Getting a bad answer from a random on the street isn't a good test for the same reason that clues on Jeopardy about stories in the bible are a common failure points for contestants on that show. Not that many people (proportionally) care enough about the origin or technical details of their belief system to have studied and retained them. They just have their belief system and haven't considered changing it because that's more difficult and feels less immediately useful than working on their proximate problems.
natermer@reddit
You don't need a "sky daddy" or church to have a religion. Nonthiestic religions are still religions.
People confuse atheism with "not believing in God".. it isn't atheism if you simply replace one belief system with another one. This is why the "new atheist movement" from the early 2000s fell apart. It started off as a real atheist movement, even though it was very naive. After it picked up steam, however, it quickly became overran by brainwashed Critical Theory/Woke types, which is a form of Neo-Marxism that most of them picked up while being indoctrinated in university classes.
What is more is that Marxism is a form of Young Hegelianism. It is derived from Hegelianism much in the same what that Christianity was derived from Judaism.
Hegel, in effect, tried to create a new German folk religion to counter act what he saw as the Orientalization of German society under the influence of Christianity. In essence trying to make Germany/Prussia more German. It incorporated elements of other earlier and contemporary ideologies, like bits and pieces of Platonism, Christianity, and Alchemy.
It is a form of Historicism which presupposes that originally there was a sort of perfect form of everything that became corrupted over time. Kinda like with Plato where he believed there was a sort of perfect kingdom that existed and it became corrupted and worse over time.
And over time as human society evolves and through struggles and conflicts through a dialectical process were you have thesis contending with the antithesis which then is resolved into the synthesis that is neither thesis or antithesis, but contained elements of both that are purified by the conflict.
And in this way as society evolves the "godhead", which is more or less the collective mind of mankind, approaches closer to perfection and self awareness.
And under this model the state is the physical embodiment of this sort of will or collective consciousness. He believed that in order for society to evolve and progress you needed institutions to direct that change... which are all part of how a state functions.
Marxism is directly derived from this. Although they sought to purge all the metaphysical and spiritual elements from Hegelianism. Which, formally, is called Dialectical Materialism.
It is "materialism" because it says that what matters in society is the material reality, the economics. Not some metaphysical spirit that exists in the collective imagination of mankind.
But you see plenty of elements poking through.
To drive the point home:
The equivalent to "Garden of Eden" in Marxism s "Primitive Communism". In which every person worked for the collective good of their tribe in perfect harmony.
The Original Sin of Marxism is "Division of Labor". When you separated the thinkers (masters) from the doers (slaves) that is when people started become corrupted and economic struggle between classes began.
The Eschatology (end time theories) of Marxism is Communism. This is a utopia stage of social evolution were the state nullifies itself through the final dialectical process and humans are physically and mentally transformed into "New Man" or "Social Man" (etc) were people work together as equals with no class distinctions.
And you have moral obligations that you are required to fulfill if you want ultimate salvation of mankind. Especially in modern forms of Marxism were they have decided that there is only two possible end-states of humanity.. which is either Fascism (hell) or Communism (heaven).
All of this depends 100% on Faith.
There is no proof for any of it.
The primitive communism, the dialectical process of history, the effect/origins/resolution of class conflict, and communism is all just pure conjecture. They believe in it simply because they want to believe in it.
If you don't want to call it a "religion" because that word is too loaded or you don't like it... that is fine, but it is sure as hell a faith.
PuttPutt7@reddit
Yeah, even scandanavian countries which Bernie tries to self-declare as socialist marxist havens actually self-purport as capitalist countries "with a social safety net".
EnemyUtopia@reddit
What are you doing?!?! We cant be rational here, save that for the important stuff like racial issues!
chmendez@reddit (OP)
I read about the idea that communism/marxism could be seen as a "religion" , more than 20 years ago.
Every once in a while, I get reminded that it might be a lot pf true in that idea.
Marxism mindsets and ideas are deeply ingrained not only in academia but in many places.
It kind of died with the fall of the URSS and Iron Curtain but it has resurrected with cultural marxism.
MROLOQ@reddit
I would choose the original Marxists over today’s so-called "cultural Marxists" any day. Most modern leftists don’t even grasp what socialism or communism are actually about. It’s as if they stripped away the few redeeming aspects of Marxism and created this monstrosity known as leftism, whose only purpose is destruction, denial, and cynicism.
___miki@reddit
It's as if the system couldn't tolerate the economic critique but still allows for "safe" discourse (which is of course deranged, the main problem for a big part of the globe is getting basic necessities).
Think of the white, rich feminists. All subversive content was removed and all that is left if being a "girl boss".
Shiroiken@reddit
It might be considered cult-like, but it's not really a religion.
Random-INTJ@reddit
Iansloth13@reddit
source?
Random-INTJ@reddit
I actually don’t know who said that, I’ll look up the quote and get back to you.
Paccuardi03@reddit
Can a religion be followed by people of different religions?
BeescyRT@reddit
It really does feel like that's the case.
I had came across a few tankies online, and they are pretty toxic to me.
C0gD1z@reddit
So Marxism is the Marxism of the masses?
dagoofmut@reddit
Kinda true.
natermer@reddit
It is the iron law of woke projection.
You accuse other people of what you are.
TargetOfPerpetuity@reddit
At least I live in Appalachia, where the opiate of the masses is opiates -- as ~~Big Pharma~~ God intended.
redditcdnfanguy@reddit
It's religion that demands human sacrifice.
LungDOgg@reddit
Can't remember the name of the fabulous book I read a couple years ago, but he made the argument that liberalism is a religion. I agree based on the idea that a religion is something you base your identity around, convert others too, create a ethos etc. almost the entire world values the individual over the group at this point. This led to feminism, equal rights etc. fascinating right but I would call this easily the world's biggest religion
vanillaafro@reddit
Fear mongering
cmparkerson@reddit
Well Marxism isn't a religion
DarthBastiat@reddit
Marxism and Statism go hand and hand. It’s absolutely true.
Redditusername195@reddit
largest religion is democracy
kittysparkles@reddit
Except the vast majority of religions preach giving, not stealing.
afitz_7@reddit
That’s half iincorrect. They are more than happy to give away what belongs to other people.
MROLOQ@reddit
yikes
TargetOfPerpetuity@reddit
*Death Cult.
choadly77@reddit
Really fucking stupid
MEMExplorer@reddit
It tracks
Barskor1@reddit
The largest religion on earth is Government every Ism is just sects within the slavery death cult.
LoopyPro@reddit
Apart from divinity, it's pretty much a religion.
allesklar1@reddit
Take a look at some Latin American countries
MROLOQ@reddit
I'm here. Can confirm.
Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit
Yep, it's a nontheistic religion.
mostlikelynotasnail@reddit
I wouldn't say Marxism I'd just say collectivisim as it encompasses all forms
chmendez@reddit (OP)
Well, different forms of collectivism has been the dominant political ideologies in human history as far as we know.
Individualism is the rarity, a western idea developed, arguably, through the middle ages and getting strong thanks to (british?/anglo-saxon?) Liberalism in the last three centuries.
BitchStewie_@reddit
A lot of ideologies are at risk of becoming religion-like, including libertarianism if we're being honest.
I'm no fan of marxism, but this comment is low effort and could apply to basically any ideology that's seen as cult-like in any way.
riplan1911@reddit
Doesn't mean it ok
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
An irrational system people cling to because it promises them a paradise it has no ability to provide? Makes sense.
MROLOQ@reddit
Modern Marxism has become entirely a religious phenomenon, with its inquisitors lurking everywhere: governments, universities, schools, families, and even churches. A virus that spread around, zombie-like masses endlessly parroting platitudes in their forever hive-mind behavior.