Legitimacy in anarchy

[Cry_Havok]

Sure, then give me the explanation of why we can play as the Anarchist States of America but not as the Ainu Tribes of Hokkaido…

If your point is that we should be able to start game as a Decentralized nation, I agree.

 

[Darsara]

You are doing the same argument bugglesley is doing that one of them is a decentralized government that became one after being centralized. My whole argument is that if starting decentralized nations are unplayable, future decentralized nations should be to.
You still might disagree with me and that's fine, it's just that, well, I like this consistency in the game. Specially because now, it will be theoretically possible to become an Anarchist Luddite "Nation" in 1.3 and what exactly will they be different from starting "primitive" states?

Well, there are plans/hope to make decentralised nations playable with unique mechanics. Hopefully anarchist areas get stuff around the same time.

As for the what's difference, well, were the anarchist areas of Spain or Russia during the 1920/30's the same as the Mapuche or the natives of New Guinea? Heck, how many anarchist groups even push for something like them?

 

[$ilent_$trider]

If your point is that we should be able to start game as a Decentralized nation, I agree.

Basically it. Mostly, if I can’t play a decentralized nation at the start of the game, I shouldn’t play one later just because “anarchism”.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

As for the what's difference, well, were the anarchist areas of Spain or Russia during the 1920/30's the same as the Mapuche or the natives of New Guinea? Heck, how many anarchist groups even push for something like them?

Except for the fact that they had industrialized goods and the others didn’t, they would eventually go into tribalism and bartering goods and services or grow up.

 

[yurcick]

View attachment 967701
Basically it. Mostly, if I can’t play a decentralized nation at the start of the game, I shouldn’t play one later just because “anarchism”.

You're confusing a terminological question with the real one.
Potential anarchist communes, while politically decentralized, still have complex economy, high literacy and political awareness to push local agenda. Because of this it would make sense to make them playable, despite the fact that they can be named "decentralized".
The countries that are now called "decentralized" simply don't have anything to play with.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

You're confusing a terminological question with the real one.
Potential anarchist communes, while politically decentralized, still have complex economy, high literacy and political awareness to push local agenda. Because of this it would make sense to make them playable, despite the fact that they can be named "decentralized".
The countries that are now called "decentralized" simply don't have anything to play with.

Yeah, yeah, I have heard this argument before. But if people REALLY, REALLY, want to be free and don’t be subject to someone else’s power, they will need to give up some of that freedom for being able to actually engage with the rest of society. The moment two anarchists disagree on something and call a third party to adjudicate for them they gave up their freedom so someone else can decide for them.
Anarchism assumes that for it to work, people will never have disagreements and that people won’t be assholes. Good luck with that.

 

[Aloraand]

Anarchism assumes that for it to work, people will never have disagreements and that people won’t be assholes. Good luck with that.

That's a really weird reading of anarchism. Left anarchism argues for abolishment of arbitrary/ self justifying hierarchies, not an absence of social organisation.

On the other hand, what is called decentralised nations are rather a set of tribal peoples occupying the same geographic area with at most informal diplomacy between the tribes.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

That's a really weird reading of anarchism. Left anarchism argues for abolishment of arbitrary/ self justifying hierarchies, not an absence of social organisation.

On the other hand, what is called decentralised nations are rather a set of tribal peoples occupying the same geographic area with at most informal diplomacy between the tribes.

You basically have three school of thoughts regarding Anarchism. You have Extreme Individualism where it’s all about not giving up individual freedoms to institutions. That one works great as long as no one is an asshole to another. Then you have collectivism, that one requires no one to disagree with anyone.
Then you have Anarcho-Capitalism, which, uhm, exists as the wet dream of the Koch Brothers, I guess.
When I say that these anarchists societies devolve into tribalism, I mean that they will be mostly functional with small groups of people living together, just like hunter-gatherer tribes.

 

[JesterInYellow]

Left anarchism argues for abolishment of arbitrary/ self justifying hierarchies

This is literally the most useless definition of anything in all of political theory and I cringe every time I see it. I mean I'm not gonna clown on you just for saying it, because I know that's what the actual theory defines itself as, but holy crap is it so pointless. Literally every government on Earth is anarchist from their own perspective because they don't view their hierarchies as simply arbitrary. And if you've spent any time as a philosophy student (and I have, unfortunately), you know that arguments on what is "arbitrary" go absolutely nowhere.

Personally I think it's an absolute meme that Victoria includes anarchism at all, but so long as it is including it, and we're taking the lunatic-next-step to suspending our disbelief and imagining that an anarchist society can exist as a large stable organized industrialized country with complex logistics and intercontinental communication, sure, it's different from tribes, in that the tribes are not being memed into superpowers by the devs. We can indeed argue that anarchist countries should not be portrayed as decentralized countries, because decentralized countries are the result of the devs cringing at their prior games in the series, whilst the anarchist countires are the result of the devs currently being cringe.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

This is a well-worn rut but in this game you categorically do not play as the state, you play as the "spirit of the nation." Otherwise the cognitive dissonance of "I [the player] am an oligarchy run by landowners and I am going to, on purpose, include minority IGs in goverment to pass laws unpopular with the rest of the ruling class that disempower said ruling class and massively invest in the sectors of the economy that will empower my opponents" would just be too much. The devs have committed to a theory of history that social and economic changes are what drive history, not the decisions of the "great men" who led states; thus, just running a state would be really boring and unsatisfying as you'd have little agency as the world changes around you, outside of your control or decisions.

A lot of what you do in the game (buildings, laws) are fully outside the authority of the state in the simulation. You clicking a law is saying "this is going to be what the society focuses on" and you're theoretically rolling against the state if you have less than 50% chance to pass it. Even things like foreign policy and warfare fall easily into this structure; your decisions represent the consensus that the collective came to the same way that your decisions in a democracy represent the consensus of whatever decisionmaking structures the state has. Your framing precludes this and, honestly most of what we do playing this game.

As a result, no, I don't think it's accurate to say that gameplay should stop if your state becomes stateless. There is still a society and an economy in an anarchic society, and even without a treasure trove of violently coercive state power to squabble over there is still politics.

I do disagree with OP's plan, however, as I don't think that it's correct to assert that everyone would view any anarchist "government" as fully "legitimate" with everyone in power--I don't agree with the notion that anarchy should be a game over, but I also don't think it should be an "instant utopia" button. The real-life anarchist societies used as examples as to why the law should exist at all were fairly rapidly crushed, usually by other "IGs" within the society itself. One of my broadest criticisms of the radical left gameplay is how easily reactive elements lay down--capitalists instantly "unemployed" en masse (another absolutely wild thing to me--hooray, I won the law siege, and now instantly the whole economy is coops with no disruption or anything, maybe I'll have to deal with a revolution) react like a regular ol worker having to find a new job which is.. not uh not typically how things have gone.

Convincing the pops in the Industrialist, landowner, devout and PB IGs to reconsider their support should be a long and difficult process that also shouldn't end conclusively with a revolution; nobody in their right mind who still subscribes to the Industrialist newsletter is going to be like "oh yes, sure, the law changed to anarchic commune and we get to be part of the decisionmaking so I think it's perfectly legit that this is how everything works now." They want to have all of the decisionmaking again!

You don't play as a "Spirit of the Nation" either. It's just post-hoc justification for all the schizophrenic game mechanics. Otherwise, game should continue even after all your territory is annexed.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

decentralized countries, because decentralized countries are the result of the devs cringing at their prior games in the series

I would argue that Decentralized Countries are much more egregious eurocentrism than just making it Terra Nullius, especially in a game with POPs.

in that the tribes are not being memed into superpowers by the devs.

Tribes are not being memed into superpowers by the devs yet.

 

[The Russian Empire]

You don't play as a "Spirit of the Nation" either. It's just post-hoc justification for all the schizophrenic game mechanics. Otherwise, game should continue even after all your territory is annexed.

It appears that the devs were heavily influenced by Herder's concept of Volksgeist while designing the game, perhaps taking his ideas a bit more seriously than they should have.

 

[Stelaria]

Sure, then give me the explanation of why we can play as the Anarchist States of America but not as the Ainu Tribes of Hokkaido…

Because the developers haven't found a model for playing as decentralized, pre-industrial societies that they like and feels good and interesting enough to implement in the game, most likely. I believe I've seen a developer post saying they'd like the option to be available, even if it'd be very difficult. I would expect it to be implemented eventually once diplomacy and interaction with decentralized nations is more fleshed out, but right now the impression I have is that the focus is on improving and polishing existing modes of play rather than adding new ones.

re: anarchism in general, though, it's more about not having an entrenched ruling class and systems of self-perpetuating hierarchy that generate inequality. An anarchist polity can still have a constitution and laws codifying methods for resolution of disputes, standards of trade and so forth, and even organized bodies for enforcing those laws, so long as it's dispensing with the notion of the state and of evaluating people's worth by their utility to the state. I'd argue that, at very least, a technocratic anarchy wherein constructing laws, founding institutions and resolving disputes within society are simply social roles with no special status or privileges is possible, albeit not necessarily stable.

That said, though, I think the effectiveness of anarchism in the game is owed to the fact that corruption is not yet implemented as a feature within the economic simulation; once it is, I imagine it'll be very, very difficult to maintain an anarchist commune with no police without, e.g. organized crime emerging and growing into de facto warlord states.

 

[Ekyman]

It appears that the devs were heavily influenced by Herder's concept of Volksgeist while designing the game, perhaps taking his ideas a bit more seriously than they should have.

The idea that you play as the “spirit of the nation” has a long history in strategy games and is not something invented by the V3 devs. Apparently there are a lot more people unfamiliar with it than I (and maybe the devs) expected, but it’s neither a novel nor particularly interesting statement and it’s a mix of hilarious and frustrating to see how much consternation it’s generated here.