Anarchists; or, why Anarcho-Liberals?

[EdinSumar]

Hey, I have been playing Victoria II for quite a while now, and it's a great game, one of my favorites in fact. I've always been bothered by the "anarchists" portrayed in the game, however. How come the only anarchist rebellions and factions in the game constitute the very right-wing and capitalistic "Anarcho-Liberal" sort, when the majority of anarchist thinkers and movements, and the movements that has had the most success (such as the one in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and Free Territory during the Russian revolution) were very specifically anti-capitalist and socialist?

The two major strains of anarchism were for a very long time collectivist and individualist anarchism, even so individualist anarchism was to some extent just as anti-capitalist as collectivist anarchism, so to me at least it makes very little sense that the only faction to bear the "anarchism" label are a radicalized subsection of the liberal ideology. Why are there no anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, anarcha-feminist and so on factions in Victoria 2?

Thoughts?

- Edin

 

[delra]

They had to pack a number of very different ideologies under one label, share them across the map and still be playable for the player....

 

[unmerged(138973)]

What kind of economic policy would a left wing anarchist party have? Laissez-faire and Interventionist wouldn't seem right as capitalists would be making profits and building factories. State capitalism and Planned Economy would seem a better fit. However a player opening and shutting factories from upon high wouldn't fit with the whole collective decision making thing that left wing anarchists seem to be keen on. Unless you go with the idea that the player is not an individual but the will of the nation itself.

Perhaps on ascension to power of a left wing anarchist party all factories could shut and all the craftsmen become artisans.

Should the army of a left wing anarchist country suffer from penalties due to loosing a clear hierarchy and discipline. For a period in the Russian Civil war some Red Army units elected their officers and took votes on attacking and defending. The results were less than stellar and such practises were stopped by Trotsky during his reorganisation of the Red Army. A reorganisation that greatly improved the Red Army’s battlefield performance.

 

[delra]

Well, actual anarchy would be best simulated by uncolonized land in this game...

 

[EdinSumar]

Well, anarchists have traditionally been anti-parlamentaristic and furthermore anti-vanguardist in general, so I can see the problem in creating a left-wing anarchist party, it would not be possible. "Taking power" in a centralized fashion has never been the aim of anarchist revolutions as much as opposing centralized power to let decentralized communities to grow free of the "yoke" of an oppressive state apparatus. As such, having left-wing anarchists take power in a game as Victoria 2 would make very little sense, more likely they would make some of your areas unusable and stateless.

Though, in Spain, during the civil war, some anarchists did sit in the republican government on a temporary basis, I am less aware of the intricaties of that in particular, except that it was a wartime measure amongst other things and not a thing that was so well-liked by all of the CNT.

I can understand if the reasoning behind them not being in the game was that they are hard to fit into the whole gameplay, but it still seems rather strange that anarcho-liberals have a higher presence than they do.

(Sorry if some of the above seems a bit awkwardly written, English is not my primary language.)

- Edin

 

[unmerged(138973)]

Well, actual anarchy would be best simulated by uncolonized land in this game...

I suppose so. Going from what I've read in "Guns Germs and Steel" the only naturally occurring anarchic societies were hunter gatherers and or primitive agriculturalists. Hierarchical societies being better able to mobilize people and resources destroyed naturally occurring anarchism through conquest and colonisation.

Anarchism that springs up in modern industrial societies either get destroyed as in the Spanish and Russian civil wars or usually fails to expand much beyond communes of more than a few hundred people.

 

[Phalanxia]

A-Ls represent liberal POPs who have high militancy, rather than actual anarchists per se.

 

[lol887]

I don't see any problems with having Anarcho-Liberals. For economic policy Laisse fair is the one that fit's anarchism best. Because No-Sate = no one to control the market.

Also, we have modern day examples of Anarchy; Somalia. As expected it did not work very well. But it did start because of a failed state, not a Anarchist movement. But Anarchy is Anarchy.
Ingame Anarchy should be either uncolonized, or constant infighting between rebel groups.

 

[Comrade Chaos]

Also, we have modern day examples of Anarchy; Somalia. As expected it did not work very well.

Africa, as expected, has never worked very well.

 

[Phalanxia]

I don't see any problems with having Anarcho-Liberals.

They're bad because there was never an actual movement called "Anarcho-Liberalism", or one that ascribed to its in-game beliefs (at least until ~1970)

Also, we have modern day examples of Anarchy; Somalia. As expected it did not work very well. But it did start because of a failed state, not a Anarchist movement. But Anarchy is Anarchy.
Ingame Anarchy should be either uncolonized, or constant infighting between rebel groups.

I'm no anarchist, but using Somalia as an example of an anarchist society is just plain dumb.

Africa, as expected, has never worked very well.

To think or expect that is pretty racist.

 

[lol887]

I'm no anarchist, but using Somalia as an example of an anarchist society is just plain dumb.

Why?. A Anarchy is a society without a goverment and laws. This in most cases leads to the powerfull killing and repressing the less powerfull. Wich is what happened/happens in Somalia.
Thinking that a anarchist society can be anything but this is just wishfull thinking.
Anarchists imagine a society where people voluntarily work together for the common good. This falls appart the day one individual finds out we does not want to be a part of this, and istead takes power himself, steals or represses people. What's to stop him, there are no state after all.

 

[EdinSumar]

Why?. A Anarchy is a society without a goverment and laws. This in most cases leads to the powerfull killing and repressing the less powerfull. Wich is what happened/happens in Somalia.

Actually, you're wrong, and its a common misconception. Anarchy is a society without rulers, not without rules. Anarchist theory is much more complex than this rather limited and inaccurate portrayal, and I would advice you to take a look at some of that theory before you spread further misinformation.

As Kropotkin noted: "The law [meaning the law that was in place when he spoke this] is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and could be followed even if no law [again, defined as jura in the sense traditional for his time] existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority, but harmful to the masses of men, and can be enforced on them only by terror."

This here is a good site maintained by anarchists about anarchist theory:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

- Edin

 

[lol887]

Actually, you're wrong, and its a common misconception. Anarchy is a society without rulers, not without rules.

- Edin

If the rules are voluntarily, they are not rules. To have rules in a society, you need a goverment to enforce them. And if a Anarchist voluntarily society would enforce their rules without a goverment, it would be in the form of a mob rule, wich is just as bad as a dictatorship. A just society needs a rule of law, not a rule of the masses. And to have a rule of law, you need a goverment with seperations of power. A Anarchist society provide none of these, and is either chaos or mob rule.

 

[EdinSumar]

If the rules are voluntarily, they are not rules. To have rules in a society, you need a goverment to enforce them. And if a Anarchist voluntarily society would enforce their rules without a goverment, it would be in the form of a mob rule, wich is just as bad as a dictatorship. A just society needs a rule of law, not a rule of the masses. And to have a rule of law, you need a goverment with seperations of power. A Anarchist society provide none of these, and is either chaos or mob rule.

Okay, look, this really is not the point of the thread and we are venturing somewhat offtopic, so I'll just stick to informing you that you still have a rather simplistic view on a rather complex theory which has been examined and re-examined for quite a long time by many different thinkers, I think you should seek out some information about it before you dismiss it so readily.

But really, a political discussion is not the point of this thread. The point of the thread is this: Left-wing anarchists are more numerous in real world history and in anarchist theory, but not in the game. Why so? And how would those uprisings work if they were a part of the game?

- Edin

 

[ahen1020]

To think or expect that is pretty racist.

Most African countries aren't developed, but nothing racist was said. South Africa is an example of a wealthy african country, it had a large european influence until 1994, ever since apartheid ended unemployment has been even higher.

 

[Phalanxia]

The point of the thread is this: Left-wing anarchists are more numerous in real world history and in anarchist theory, but not in the game. Why so? And how would those uprisings work if they were a part of the game?

- Edin

It's somewhat difficult to play an anarchist society in-game, given that the player interacts with the game through the state. It couldn't be implemented accurately or well without substantial revisions to the game's basic design.

Most African countries aren't developed, but nothing racist was said..

Apart from the implication that Africans are primitive by virtue of coming from Africa, no, I guess not.

South Africa is an example of a wealthy african country, it had a large european influence until 1994, ever since apartheid ended unemployment has been even higher

That's such a rubbish justification of racism that I'm not even going to address it.

 

[unmerged(138973)]

It's somewhat difficult to play an anarchist society in-game, given that the player interacts with the game through the state. It couldn't be implemented accurately or well without substantial revisions to the game's basic design.

Although there is a way round this argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the player act as the guiding spirit of the nation rather than an individual leader or faction. If this is the case I feel it wouldn't a great leap to imagine the players acting as the collective will of the people.

 

[EdinSumar]

I'd agree that a good reason that you don't see bona-fide anarchist revolutions in the same way that you see other revolutions is probably because of one of their aims being the complete abolishment of the state, while Victoria II is very much a game about controlling a state apparatus. In that way, it makes sense. My main problem with it is that it just seems very strange to exclude them while keeping "anarcho-liberals" in the game, but then again, there are a lot of other rebels that would have made sense to include that probably ended up getting scrapped due to them not interacting well with the core gameplay (such as, I guess, Luddite rebels?).

A genuine anarchist society would probably do away with quite a few of the sliders and require a lot of other menus. Probably the same reason you can't attempt to transition from the proletarian dictatorship to the "next stage" of communism (even after having destroyed all opposing capitalist centres of power), the game can't handle that particular type of "governance" because it was not designed for it.

Thoughts?

- Edin

 

[unmerged(391327)]

1) Not all anarchists during this time were left "collectivist" anarchists. Though you're right that they were the most influential during the 19th century, anarchists like Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner, Gustave de Molinari, Lysander Spooner, etc. all had some sort of "capitalist" leaning (Stirner promoted "Egoist Anarchism"; he's more known for his ontological views than political. Tucker was a "right-wing" anarchist of some sort. Molinari was essentially anarcho-capitalist. Spooner was a voluntarist, etc.). These movements of "anarchy with private property" are simulated by the anarcholiberal political group.


2) Even so, the anarcho-liberal political parties/bourgeious-dictatorships aren't truly "anarcho-liberal" (there remains a centralized "state"- or state-equivalent- organization). We could reasonably state that these were the James Mill or Frederic Bastiat-type "radicals" of the 19th century... or that some sort of large-scale security provider (Stirner's case: Union of Egoists, for example) took the place of the state.

They're bad because there was never an actual movement called "Anarcho-Liberalism", or one that ascribed to its in-game beliefs (at least until ~1970)


I'm no anarchist, but using Somalia as an example of an anarchist society is just plain dumb.

As a voluntarist (Anarcho-capitalist), I have to say that the Anarcho-liberal movement (Anarcho-liberal, as far as I know, was a term invented for the game; however, Market Anarchism and Voluntarist existed during this time period) predates Rothbardian anarchism. The aforementioned Molinari was a "Market Anarchist" (close friend to minarchist Frederic Bastiat); Lysander Spooner was a voluntarist.

Also, we have modern day examples of Anarchy; Somalia. As expected it did not work very well. But it did start because of a failed state, not a Anarchist movement. But Anarchy is Anarchy.
Ingame Anarchy should be either uncolonized, or constant infighting between rebel groups.

Except anarchism is an actual ideology distinct from the use of the term anarchy to refer to "chaos". Anarchism is a rejection of "rulers" (anarcho-liberalism is an objection to "rulers" that promotes the notion of private property). Un-colonized territories during this period had "rulers" (tribal kingdoms; 'states' in the ancap sense of the word) and in-fighting rebel groups doesn't accurately represent the philosophy of anarchism in the slightest.

If the rules are voluntarily, they are not rules. To have rules in a society, you need a goverment to enforce them. And if a Anarchist voluntarily society would enforce their rules without a goverment, it would be in the form of a mob rule, wich is just as bad as a dictatorship. A just society needs a rule of law, not a rule of the masses. And to have a rule of law, you need a goverment with seperations of power. A Anarchist society provide none of these, and is either chaos or mob rule.

This is miserably off-topic for a board discussing gameplay. Suffice to say, anarchist theorists have developed legal theories within a voluntary legal framework (some believe in the legitimacy of retaliatory force, a la Walter Block). Ancaps like Gustave de Molinari, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and Stefan Molyneux have attempted to address this concern in their legal theories.

Regardless of whether or not you believe such a society would work (vis-a-vis communism in the game), it deserves some representation in the game. Especially given that it's already represented as a "night's watchmen" government (not an anarcho-liberal stateless society). That is, the game already assumes that actual anarcho-liberalism is implausible, and replaced it with a "minimal state".


I'm fine with how anarcho-liberals are currently represented in the game. I'm a bit perturbed by the assumption that the default in anarcho-liberal revolution is a "Bourgeois Dictatorship" (note that this nowhere appears in market anarchist literature as an "alternative" to the democratic/monarchist/proletarian dictatorship states). I would think that naming the radical governments something like "Revolutionary Unions" or something (idk; find a term that may actually appear in anarchist literature; Security Providers seems too boring; "Voluntary Association" just sounds dumb); that way it can feasibly represent a non-state "director" of the "nation".

 

[Demorel]

@ahen1020
It is because they all had an modern societys rule and economy put on them while being denied to participate in it, thus there was no educational basis for maintaining the remnants of that structure, while being forced at gunpoint since then to compete with the rest of the world economically.
The big difference from africa to asia is that the latter got spared from a lot of random border drawing with no respect to cultural identitys and excessive colonization and violence, not even going into the enviromental differences - and it didnt go very well there either.