What about anarchy?

[unmerged(132146)]

anarchists are briefly mentioned in two spanish civil war events in hoi2, but only seriously in one, when if the republicans win the comintern backed forces crush the other political forces within the nationalists (anarchists and trotskyists).

historically there was the slight possibility of an anarcho-syndicalist "government" in spain

 

[unmerged(64742)]

Maybe I can add a very good quote on what anarchism may signify personally (and which I tend to agree with): "I have no masters and I have no subordinates". Or as Clawfinger would sing: "power to the one who doesn't want it!"

 

[dsteve3]

Apples and Oranges! Stalin was a bigger fascist than Mussalini!

I bring anarchy to your thread! Muhuwahahahah ... !



Anarchy just happens. I don't think its a good idea to introduce anarchy into a game designed to sell to a bunch of control-freaks (no offense, ...)

 

[Tarhun]

I am really surprised at how many people are still confused over this. Let me be as clear as possible:


Anarchy does not mean absence of rule of law.


Anarchy is a political ideology, just like Communism, Fascism or Capitalism.

 

[unmerged(64742)]

I am really surprised at how many people are still confused over this. Let me be as clear as possible:


Anarchy does not mean absence of rule of law.


Anarchy is a political ideology, just like Communism, Fascism or Capitalism.

It is no big surprise Tarhun - it is a bit like 'liberalism'. Once it stood for the Declaration of Human Rights and the Radical Enlightenment, but somehow it got restricted to free markets... How, why???

Ever heard of 'newspeak'? Sure you have: the same Orwell who wrote Homage to Catalonia about how his POUM militiamen got betrayed all over, wrote 1984 in 1948 after the war, on how 'thought police' can guide our ways of thinking and acting by redefining the words we use to define reality. In this example 'anarchy that just happens' with people just taking what they want and burning the rest is a whole lot less appealing and emancipating to people than 'anarchism' as taking control over your own life without hierarchical powers above you, with the only boundaries being your own integral sense of justice and responsibility...

Now I will shut up about it and think my own truths...

 

[Fanzun]

I am really surprised at how many people are still confused over this. Let me be as clear as possible:


Anarchy does not mean absence of rule of law.


Anarchy is a political ideology, just like Communism, Fascism or Capitalism.

I think you confuse Anarchy with Anarchism.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

I am really surprised at how many people are still confused over this. Let me be as clear as possible:

Anarchy does not mean absence of rule of law.

Anarchy is a political ideology, just like Communism, Fascism or Capitalism.

Errr?

We are talking about a world war two game, and you want anarchy (in the sense of liberal goverment free of police and whatnot) to be in? What sort of an army would this "anarchy" muster? How on Earth would it be in place in a game where fascists and communists try to take over the world? What country would be an "anarchy"? How long would it last? What's the point?

If you want to have a liberal country full of rainbows and chocolate bars, there are quite a lot of democratic country types out there. If you want to feel good about yourself, mustering an army group of plasma-rifled paratrooper anarchists beating the snot out of authoritanian regimes, you can always mod that in.

 

[unmerged(64742)]

Errr?

We are talking about a world war two game, and you want anarchy (in the sense of liberal goverment free of police and whatnot) to be in? What sort of an army would this "anarchy" muster? How on Earth would it be in place in a game where fascists and communists try to take over the world? What country would be an "anarchy"? How long would it last? What's the point?

If you want to have a liberal country full of rainbows and chocolate bars, there are quite a lot of democratic country types out there. If you want to feel good about yourself, mustering an army group of plasma-rifled paratrooper anarchists beating the snot out of authoritanian regimes, you can always mod that in.

Hey they DID fight! Please look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw&feature=related or read some books on it please!

 

[unmerged(135152)]

Hey they DID fight!

In a civil war...

Which is different on so many levels. Everyone fights in civil wars. Everyone.

Does that mean that an anarchy would build tank divisions and go on an offensive war? No it doesn't. Because anarchists, like atheists, don't like the idea of going into the trenches. Warfare, by definition, is organized. You need command structures, you need an unequal society, you need something kill and die for. There is no such a thing as an "anarchist society". If there were (That is, if you mean a highly liberal society based on some anarchistic ideals without police and whatnot), it would not have a standing army and generals and command structures.

The fact that dogs fought in the Spanish civil war doesn't mean that some countries should be "canine". It's just common sense.

 

[Xz2]

In a civil war...

Which is different on so many levels. Everyone fights in civil wars. Everyone.

Does that mean that an anarchy would build tank divisions and go on an offensive war? No it doesn't. Because anarchists, like atheists, don't like the idea of going into the trenches. Warfare, by definition, is organized. You need command structures, you need an unequal society, you need something kill and die for. There is no such a thing as an "anarchist society". If there were (That is, if you mean a highly liberal society based on some anarchistic ideals without police and whatnot), it would not have a standing army and generals and command structures.

The fact that dogs fought in the Spanish civil war doesn't mean that some countries should be "canine". It's just common sense.

Anarchist can organize themself... Like CNT. And, if Cnt would have won, the game should have the possibledy to simulait that.

 

[unmerged(64742)]

Anarchist can organize themself... Like CNT. And, if Cnt would have won, the game should have the possibledy to simulait that.

And FAI-CNT COULD have won, if...

1) The Republican government had not refused to arm them
2) The West (UK, France, maybe US) had supported the elected Republican government, at the very least not aided Franco in secret... Did you know that even after the war, Republican refugees were almost left starving to death in French refugee camps?
3) Stalin hadn't ripped out their heart by locking up their spokespeople and leaders as traitors, refused them arms, even using commissars to execute wounded anarchist soldiers on the Ebro front (I have clear proof of that somewhere at home)

But anyway Fluffammable good points for the rest

Plus 'left wing radical' may come close

 

[unmerged(134131)]

there was Durutti's column, FAI militia who defend Madrid,
CNT-FAI lead Barcelona a long time, before stalinist backstabb them, then lose against franco...
i read long time ago an history of anarchism, where it was write that production in catalonya was better under CNT "rules" than before...

but it has no sense out of spain, because that was the last country where anarchist movement had lot of partisan, in other country, left wing joined the international communist, so stalin...

(about help from france, french governement had 2 choices: help spanish republican and break alliance with UK, or stay neutral.... both choice make lot of angry in the country, neutrality pushing communist out of the governement)

 

[unmerged(131989)]

Indeed. Seems like a very isolated instance which would just be better in events, somehow, IMO.

 

[unmerged(132146)]

Because anarchists, like atheists, don't like the idea of going into the trenches.

tell that to the nkvd.

ok, lots of red army soldiers were privately not atheists, but lots weren't. the red army fought harder and tougher than the western allies' christian armies x a million. not sure if that was religion or the gun to their heads behind the lines, or just their nature and the nature of their enemy's invaion and occupation, but it still disproves your point. (my own view is that soldiers from democracies are less good soldiers than those of totalitarian regimes, whatever their religion or lack of)

actually who in the hell does like going into the trenches?

also lots of believers refused to fight on religious grounds.

your lack of knowledge displays you are basically speaking from prejudice.

 

[The Andy-Man]

Who said anarchy is necesarily left wing?

Beside my own views on Anarchy, i don't really think it would work in the game, nor be worth adding it to a great extent.

On a more philasophical note, human society has always been on the verge of anarchy - rule of law etc can only work for aslong as the mass of the people consent (willingly or not) to it. A few years ago in holland, everyone refused to pay the parking meters and the tickets and refused to goto court when summoned. within 2 weeks there was a 3 year backlog of over a million cases pending, so they just forgot about it and removed parking meters - anarchy in action imo!

 

[unmerged(134131)]

Who said anarchy is necesarily left wing?

another name for anarchist: libertarian communist...

anarchism isn't chaos....

 

[asteris_]

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

I think you are wrong my friend
Anarchism is an ideology and it is a leftist one, Since it is based on Socialism ideas.

The only difference with communism is that Anarchism does not have any person to have some power, or be in a government, head of the state etc. All people are truly equal and they make decisions all together.

A great ideology but unfortunately impossible to be put in action

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I think you are wrong my friend
Anarchism is an ideology and it is a leftist one, Since it is based on Socialism ideas.

The only difference with communism is that Anarchism does not have any person to have some power, or be in a government, head of the state etc. All people are truly equal and they make decisions all together.

No, that would be communism. Anarchism is essentially the lack of a fixed ideology and state machinery.

Now nihlism - there's a government type we should have.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

(my own view is that soldiers from democracies are less good soldiers than those of totalitarian regimes, whatever their religion or lack of) actually who in the hell does like going into the trenches?

your lack of knowledge displays you are basically speaking from prejudice.

:rofl:

The statement you quoted isn't intended against atheists but trenches.
As for soldiers coming from tinpot dictatorships being inherently better soldiers, well...

 

[unmerged(135152)]

On a more philasophical note, human society has always been on the verge of anarchy - rule of law etc can only work for aslong as the mass of the people consent (willingly or not) to it. A few years ago in holland, everyone refused to pay the parking meters and the tickets and refused to goto court when summoned. within 2 weeks there was a 3 year backlog of over a million cases pending, so they just forgot about it and removed parking meters - anarchy in action imo!

That would be civil disobedience, here:

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

It isn't anarchy, because the point is to change law(s), not to dispose of them. Infact the only way you can lead non-violent resistance (akin to that practised by Gandhi) is WITHIN a framework of LAW. Take Rosa Parks for example. She didn't sit in a "whites only" seat just for giggles. The battle she began ended up with racial segregation in buses to be declared unconstitutional. She changed the law, she didn't render it obsolete, which is the goal of anarchy. The goal of civil disobedience is to make laws more to your liking (Such as in your example or mine), the goal of anarchy is to dispose of any and all laws and to live in a "society" without structures of power (Police, courts, ruling classes, money, etc).

The idea of anarchy as a government type is a fairly novel one. It actually breaks the basic rules of anarchy by encouraging a number of power structures (although democratic and dynamic) to be constructed. The neo-liberal hoity-toity "anarchy" that one runs into these days is all about town-hall democracy and communes. It isn't anarchy, not even communism. It is something else altogether. I could say what, but coarse language is disapproved on these boards.