Anarchists; or, why Anarcho-Liberals?

[Muskeato]

Athens is closest to their ideal version (with universal male sufferage, positions by lot), but it suffered from numerous flaws- politicians still managed to exist, class conflict still managed to flare up and it was unstable.

Well, and it hardly had universal male suffrage to say the least.

 

[Comrade Chaos]

Los Angeles invading Nevada for their water.

...There's water in Nevada?

 

[SDSkinner]

Well, and it hardly had universal male suffrage to say the least.

Except slaves and foreigners all men could vote in Athens. So everyone who was a male citizen of Athens could vote. I'm pretty sure that fills the technical requirements for universal male sufferage, but I could be wrong.

...There's water in Nevada?

The Colorado river is about 30 miles from Las Vegas. The river is along the border with Arizona, but Nevada depends on the water from that river. Since they are upstream of California and don't many access points to the river, they are the easiest for LA to knock out- Arizona could always fall back on the tributaries or exploit the Colorado river closer to Utah.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

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.


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.


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.


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".

I think that the idea in naming these societies as "Bourgeois Dictatorship," is that when capitalists are capable of, and the only groups that can get ahold of, the means of administration and vital life services, they would simply unite the most powerful capitalists, recreate the means of governance, and take complete control of the society. Of course, can't read the minds of PDI, so I could be very wrong.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

I think that the popular idea of "Anarchism" sprung to life before the popularization of Socialism and Comunism, it was something that was inspired by the "liberal revoultion" which they are trying to portray in the game. So in a way you could say that mass Anarchism came before mass Communism, for example syndicalism as an idea did not even exist when Anarchism was "invented". I modern times Anarchism would be more alligned ro left wing ideologies. However for the timespan of the game I think that Paradox have done it right.

For those who are interested there are a whole plethora of ideahistory in regards to Anarchism, why or why not that actually is a rightwing/leftwing ideology today. The debate very much alive and you can easily find by the arguments by googling.

Altough In this forum when debating this, we always have to remember to focus on the game otherwise I fear this thread could easily spin out of control.

Actually, the ideas of socialism/collectivism sprang up from anarchist thinkers such as Joseph Pierre Proudhon... who is actually one of the "collectivist thinkers," in Vic2. His idea of anarchism is what I'm pretty sure we are discussing implementing.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

Athens is closest to their ideal version.

Not really. It was a putocratic oligarchy where you had to own large swaths of property to even vote, and even then, the officials chosen by random lot had more power than actual vote.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

I found this on Google, and failed to check for the date until now, where I realized that I am GROSSLY necroing...Sorry.