What about anarchy?

[unmerged(48091)]

I was thinking, it would be fun to have a anarchistic state, like the black ukrainians during the russian revolution after ww1. I have been reading about it lately, and i guess left-wing radical would be somewhat fitting. Still it would be fun to have an anarchistic government label.

The ideas of a classless society without any hierarchy would be an interesting thing to model into the game(at least i would think so). It is not unfitting historically either, cause there a really strong anarchistic movement around Barcelona during the spanish civil war. It was really facinating to read about how the ukrainian black army was organised. Decisions were made in mass meetings(or at least that is how they tried to do it).

 

[tretii_sleva]

Do you know any other country's examples apart from "black ukranians"?

 

[PIT_AMERO]

It was really facinating to read about how the ukrainian black army was organised. Decisions were made in mass meetings(or at least that is how they tried to do it).

Wow, tht sounds interesting- a democratic army!
Can you post (or give a link) some information about that.

As to your idea of including and the anarchy as a political form in the game, I'm not very sure. There never were any such states, right?

 

[unmerged(131221)]

Wow, tht sounds interesting- a democratic army!
Can you post (or give a link) some information about that.

As to your idea of including and the anarchy as a political form in the game, I'm not very sure. There never were any such states, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

 

[Bobb4]

I was thinking, it would be fun to have a anarchistic state, like the black ukrainians during the russian revolution after ww1. I have been reading about it lately, and i guess left-wing radical would be somewhat fitting. Still it would be fun to have an anarchistic government label.

The ideas of a classless society without any hierarchy would be an interesting thing to model into the game(at least i would think so). It is not unfitting historically either, cause there a really strong anarchistic movement around Barcelona during the spanish civil war. It was really facinating to read about how the ukrainian black army was organised. Decisions were made in mass meetings(or at least that is how they tried to do it).

And as supreme commander of this nation would you make decisions based on the voices in your head or would you like a multiple choice format, ie select A we attack, select B we retreat...
Seriously though I like the thinking behind the idea just do not see it ever being in the game.
A classless society would in any event conform to the basic communist ideals. "We are all equal" Unfortunately by this time in history 1936-1948 Stalin and Mao had perverted this into "we are all equal but some are more equal than others."
In fact in present times is their an actual example of an anarchistic government at all?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

In fact in present times is their an actual example of an anarchistic government at all?

No, nor has there ever been. The very statement in itself is paradoxical.

Sure, there are ruined states and states in such chaos and civil war that a legitimate government is hard to define, but the idea of a 'government of anarchy' is a strange one to say the least. If a state is in a state of anarchy, it is not because the government has made a profound effort to do so - quite the opposite, usually.

 

[Biges]

Anarchy and state/governent? Cotradictory!

But surely you can mod such government in. Morale +50, Org -50

 

[Bobb4]

I have to agree, despite the Black Army organisation being anarchistic in form it still fell under the general leadership of one man. Ergo it was not anarchistic. But nice topic, I have learnt a few new things... Even how to spell anarchistic

 

[Black Lotus]

I would love to see some type of "anarchistic" state a government can fall into, but lets be practical, even if such a thing occured someone would be leading the movement in some fashion, most likely a type of generalissmo. However, if a nation falls into anarchy (I.E. mass dissent, no national unity, etc.) it should face pressures of anarchy, and have negative bonuses attributed since I can't see anything good coming out of anarchy unless they reform the state with a stable government.

 

[unmerged(48091)]

No, nor has there ever been. The very statement in itself is paradoxical.

Sure, there are ruined states and states in such chaos and civil war that a legitimate government is hard to define, but the idea of a 'government of anarchy' is a strange one to say the least. If a state is in a state of anarchy, it is not because the government has made a profound effort to do so - quite the opposite, usually.

'

You are right, an anarchistic government is contradictory. The black ukrainians had a very strong(not in muscles) leader that kept them together and that made most of the decisions.

And as supreme commander of this nation would you make decisions based on the voices in your head or would you like a multiple choice format, ie select A we attack, select B we retreat...
Seriously though I like the thinking behind the idea just do not see it ever being in the game.
A classless society would in any event conform to the basic communist ideals. "We are all equal" Unfortunately by this time in history 1936-1948 Stalin and Mao had perverted this into "we are all equal but some are more equal than others."
In fact in present times is their an actual example of an anarchistic government at all?

Mandead made a good point about government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

Good reading

Wow, tht sounds interesting- a democratic army!
Can you post (or give a link) some information about that.

As to your idea of including and the anarchy as a political form in the game, I'm not very sure. There never were any such states, right?

There has not been any real one, but the black ukrainians were pretty close. Spain had a huge anarchist movement before ww2. I dont remember the numbers, but i think it was one or 2 million people in the parties. The communists in Spain worked against their own during the civil war and sabotaged and tried as good as they could to keep weapons out of the hands of the anarchists.

Do you know any other country's examples apart from "black ukranians"?

There is plenty of interesting reading about the spnish as well

 

[unmerged(48091)]

I would love to see some type of "anarchistic" state a government can fall into, but lets be practical, even if such a thing occured someone would be leading the movement in some fashion, most likely a type of generalissmo. However, if a nation falls into anarchy (I.E. mass dissent, no national unity, etc.) it should face pressures of anarchy, and have negative bonuses attributed since I can't see anything good coming out of anarchy unless they reform the state with a stable government.

The anarchistic appeal to the people is for the people without much. I am no expert about the issue, but it seems to me the anarcists are more about the individual and the responsibility of the individual, while communism is about the community, and the individual is not important at all. Anarchism i think is all about hearing the individuals words, while communism is all about not hearing the individuals words.

There has to be a leader either ideological or military, though preferably both in the same person. If you read about the ideas of Makhno, the leader of the black ukrainians, there should be some goods coming from such ideas. It will be quite similiar to communism, but with the differences i described earlier. At least that is how i think it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

 

[rommel_sniper]

Not an state biut is neccesary to hace ANARCHY ideology and not use LENINIST terminology

Examples:

Ukrania
Spain


Specially is necesary in SCW (I got annoyed when I saw that CNT and Durruti was Leninist... Is like to say that Stalin was democratic)

 

[Tarhun]

There seems to maybe be some confusion in this thread regarding what "anarchy" means. In colloquial english it means the complete absence of rule of law, but from an ideological point of view it refers to a leftist ideology. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

 

[rommel_sniper]

In fact is not "left" Is apolitical (although I know that so much people call it left, but it isnt)

Is not an ideological, but Idea (The idea of the power's destruction)

But that, We only want to have that Idea or way of thinking in game

 

[Blake1600]

The only "state" that I can think of when I think of anarchism is Somalia (sorry, just in case there's any Somalians in here). I mean, the government is in exile in Nairobi, and the easiest and most lucrative job in the country is piracy. I'm sure you can mod it in, but with no examples from the game's timeframe, it doesn't make sense for the devs to put it in standard.

 

[unmerged(41649)]

I think that the ideal for an anarchistic state is that you take a peaceful prosperous nation where all of the bureaucracy functions smoothly and then you remove most of the taxes and laws and get rid of executive power, replacing it with some kind of representative senate or a detailed constitution that dictates executive decisions for specific circumstances, something like programming code: "If invaded, then mobilize military, else keep military small". The body that performs all of the above actions then disassembles itself and the last person out of the parliament building turns off the lights and everyone keeps going about their lives.

 

[Fanzun]

Isn't the true level of anarchism achieved at 100% dissent

 

[unmerged(52507)]

I've got to say that the anarchy is best represented by rebels. And if they need some politics, build some salons in the provinces they capture.

 

[unmerged(64742)]

I have got to agree with Rommel_Sniper. I do not post here much anymore but downright wrong interpretations on 'what is anarchism' I cannot chose to ignore, especially when the clear examples of Ukraine and Spain are brought up (and more, for instance the 'temporary autonomous zones' like the Paris Commune, the post-WWI enclave of Fiume, pirate Tortuga, and others).

Let's make this clear once and for all: anarchism as a political ideology is NOT about burning everything down and all being disorderly. That is what 'democratic', fascist and stalinist propaganda taught us to think about it, in a similar way modern day media coverage on antiglobalist marches focus on destruction and not on its many constructive alternative systems.

The idea is restructuring government (and yes, there is always a system of governance, the few anarchists who deny that concept are hopelessly naive but luckily rather few in number) in such a fashion as to minimize the power of centralized structures on individuals, by redistributing the power among the people themselves. In Spain for instance both CNT-FAI (anarchist federations) and POUM (trotskyist communists) reorganized their nation to remove landowners to share the land among the people actually using it, remove factory bosses to share the responsibility and the wealth both to those who operate the factory, organise the military based on the earned respect of its leaders instead of just needing to follow someone who had more stripes, with failure to do so meaning execution - and so on.

Needless to say, a Western boss whose factory is 'stolen' to be governed by its labourers isn't very happy about it. It is no big question why Spanish industrialists favoured Franco and the West turned a blind eye, even secretly supported Franco as well. Next, Stalin did not want any revolution which wasn't HIS, so he had his men destabilizing the CNT-FAI and the POUM from day one. Just for the sake of the correct remembrance of the idealists who died betrayed in Spain, there is NO proof that both people oriented agriculture, militia and industry functioned worse under anarchism, on the contrary in many cases - but they were betrayed, left alone and forgotten. For a good reason: the ideas are dangerous to the status quo even onto this very day, so a living memory is thorougly supressed.

I do not ask anybody to agree on anarchism or non-hierarchal communism, but I only ask to try and look beyond the propaganda to what really happened, for the sake of all the people who died because of their idealism. Please read George Orwell (Homage to Catalonia) or anything by Emma Goldman, or the many internet sources on the SCW in Spanish found around the net, just to understand what really happened there.

 

[unmerged(48091)]

Isn't the true level of anarchism achieved at 100% dissent

nope, thats not it at all. Sure, having that much gives the oppertunity for a anarchistic movement to gain power and control through a takeover, but if a state is ruled by a anarchistic political idea, that does not automatically make every person in the nation hate their rulers/leaders. The political idea of anarchism is in many ways positive. As with many other political ideas, it is all about trying to make an ideal society. There are many different views about the anarchistic political idea, the most extreme are quite bad of course, and i guess many think about those when they think about anarchism. A german said that it was about claiming your rights. There are no laws. You can rape, steal kill and do what you want as long as you have the power to do it. Those views were not common with the anarchistic movements in Ukraine and Spain.

I've got to say that the anarchy is best represented by rebels. And if they need some politics, build some salons in the provinces they capture.

I do not agree

I think that the ideal for an anarchistic state is that you take a peaceful prosperous nation where all of the bureaucracy functions smoothly and then you remove most of the taxes and laws and get rid of executive power, replacing it with some kind of representative senate or a detailed constitution that dictates executive decisions for specific circumstances, something like programming code: "If invaded, then mobilize military, else keep military small". The body that performs all of the above actions then disassembles itself and the last person out of the parliament building turns off the lights and everyone keeps going about their lives.

Thats pretty good. I think thats the ideas most of the anarchists were after. Good post.