Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

How do you run an effective militia or military without a formal command structure

Sounds like an anarchy would be rekt by the first martial state it picks a fight with

[Ghazkull]

As Reelya said before, the Anarchists did pretty well in the Spanish Civil War. But i suppose Syndicalist/Anarchist Militias could wage a pretty effective defensive/guerilla war.
The Problems start with an Offensive Military on a grand scale.

I suppose the main problem is Logistics, Structure and most importantly Speed. I mean, with collectives in weapon manufacturing voting, with collectives in the government voting in every area and with collectives in the army, there is a lot of voting going on...voting takes time.

On top of that in a State of Total War, Germany simply told workers to work 16 hours a day so that enough equipment could be produced (potentially with various forms of repression), but wouldn't that prove problematc in a Syndicalist State when the local tank syndicates decide that no, they are not going to work 16 hours a day just to squeeze out one more tank a day?

And then there would be problems along the lines of "Lets vote out Rommel, he is an effective general but hes a dick, lets put Jack from the shoe factory in charge because hes a swelll dude".

[Loud Whispers]

As Reelya said before, the Anarchists did pretty well in the Spanish Civil War. But i suppose Syndicalist/Anarchist Militias could wage a pretty effective defensive/guerilla war.
The Problems start with an Offensive Military on a grand scale.

A brief look at anarchist performance in the SCW tends to show that the anarchists were continually ground up between communists and fascists though; staving off collapse in the theatre that killed Napoleon isn't a rousing tale of success

I suppose the main problem is Logistics, Structure and most importantly Speed. I mean, with collectives in weapon manufacturing voting, with collectives in the government voting in every area and with collectives in the army, there is a lot of voting going on...voting takes time.
On top of that in a State of Total War, Germany simply told workers to work 16 hours a day so that enough equipment could be produced (potentially with various forms of repression), but wouldn't that prove problematc in a Syndicalist State when the local tank syndicates decide that no, they are not going to work 16 hours a day just to squeeze out one more tank a day?
And then there would be problems along the lines of "Lets vote out Rommel, he is an effective general but hes a dick, lets put Jack from the shoe factory in charge because hes a swelll dude".

The main issue is placing people in positions of authority. Where does their authority derive from and how do they exercise it without defeating the point of opposing authority

[Grim Portent]

I suppose the main problem is Logistics, Structure and most importantly Speed. I mean, with collectives in weapon manufacturing voting, with collectives in the government voting in every area and with collectives in the army, there is a lot of voting going on...voting takes time.
On top of that in a State of Total War, Germany simply told workers to work 16 hours a day so that enough equipment could be produced (potentially with various forms of repression), but wouldn't that prove problematc in a Syndicalist State when the local tank syndicates decide that no, they are not going to work 16 hours a day just to squeeze out one more tank a day?
And then there would be problems along the lines of "Lets vote out Rommel, he is an effective general but hes a dick, lets put Jack from the shoe factory in charge because hes a swelll dude".

The main issue is placing people in positions of authority. Where does their authority derive from and how do they exercise it without defeating the point of opposing authority

As I understand it the people in authority would get it from the people they command rather than from the people above them. Decisions about who should be in charge would be made at the bottom up through tiers of delegation based on elections rather than down from above based on promotion based delegation.

So a unit would pick a leader from among them, then that leader would work with other unit leaders to pick a leader for them, and so on up the tiers of command, so the command staff would all be elected directly or indirectly by those they command rather than the lower commanders having been appointed by the higher ones.

[George_Chickens]

I suppose the main problem is Logistics, Structure and most importantly Speed. I mean, with collectives in weapon manufacturing voting, with collectives in the government voting in every area and with collectives in the army, there is a lot of voting going on...voting takes time.
On top of that in a State of Total War, Germany simply told workers to work 16 hours a day so that enough equipment could be produced (potentially with various forms of repression), but wouldn't that prove problematc in a Syndicalist State when the local tank syndicates decide that no, they are not going to work 16 hours a day just to squeeze out one more tank a day?
And then there would be problems along the lines of "Lets vote out Rommel, he is an effective general but hes a dick, lets put Jack from the shoe factory in charge because hes a swelll dude".

The main issue is placing people in positions of authority. Where does their authority derive from and how do they exercise it without defeating the point of opposing authority

As I understand it the people in authority would get it from the people they command rather than from the people above them. Decisions about who should be in charge would be made at the bottom up through tiers of delegation based on elections rather than down from above based on promotion based delegation.

So a unit would pick a leader from among them, then that leader would work with other unit leaders to pick a leader for them, and so on up the tiers of command, so the command staff would all be elected directly or indirectly by those they command rather than the lower commanders having been appointed by the higher ones.

If I'm not mistaken, this is pretty much the go-to answer for any questions pertaining to most forms of anarchism.

[Grim Portent]

That's how I understand the general principle as well.

In theory it should work fairly well, though there's not a huge number of real world examples to look at.

In the case of a military it should work decently enough if you have a well educated and competent base of professional soldiers to set the standard for new members, either by directly voting incompetents out of the military collective or by democratically setting minimum standards members have to meet. From there it's just a matter of the group being able to correctly identify the best leaders among them and electing them to represent them and their interests, which is not really any different than a general trying to discern who would make a good colonel or similar.

[TheBiggerFish]

Humh.  PTW.

[Shadowlord]

Hey, is this the Anarchism thread?

I'm busy with homework, but I'd just like to note that an "anarchist state" is an oxymoron. Anarchism is anti-state, anti-hierarchy, and anti-ruler.

I read The Man Who Was Thursday so I know all about Anarchism!

“An artist is identical with an anarchist,” [Gregory] cried. “You might transpose the words anywhere. An anarchist is an artist. The man who throws a bomb is an artist, because he prefers a great moment to everything. He sees how much more valuable is one burst of blazing light, one peal of perfect thunder, than the mere common bodies of a few shapeless policemen. An artist disregards all governments, abolishes all conventions. The poet delights in disorder only. If it were not so, the most poetical thing in the world would be the Underground Railway.”
“So it is,” said Mr. Syme.
“Nonsense!” said Gregory, who was very rational when anyone else attempted paradox. “Why do all the clerks and navvies in the railway trains look so sad and tired, so very sad and tired? I will tell you. It is because they know that the train is going right. It is because they know that whatever place they have taken a ticket for that place they will reach. It is because after they have passed Sloane Square they know that the next station must be Victoria, and nothing but Victoria. Oh, their wild rapture! oh, their eyes like stars and their souls again in Eden, if the next station were unaccountably Baker Street!”

But seriously, this thread seems very informative. Far more than a fiction book by a guy who apparently knew nothing about anarchism and thought it meant having an alignment of chaotic insane.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Uuuuuuuuuuughgggghghhghghgg

Anarchism is not the opposite of order, it is opposed to artificially applied order. I recall a beautiful analogy, quoted by Kropotkin:

We foresee millions and millions of groups freely constituting themselves for the satisfaction of all the varied needs of human beings . . . All these will be composed of human beings who will combine freely . . . 'Take pebbles,' said Fourier, 'put them in a box and shake them, and they will arrange themselves in a mosaic that you could never get by instructing to anyone the work of arranging them harmoniously.'

Anarchism says that we do not need rulers, that it is possible for peace and order to exist without someone creates the rules of that order and forcing us to comply to it. It is not "human nature" to be selfish, as many argue - humans are shaped by their environment. Nurture has always been the stronger of the two. If we no longer reward greed, then greed will cease to be a significant issue. Does society not reward those who value others less? I ask you, what sort of person will such a society produce?

*whew* calm down Doz. I'm rather passionate about anarchism.

So uhm i opened this thread because i recently started playing Kaiserreich again now that its out for HOI IV and i finally gave up on playing the Authoritarian Democrats and bit the lemon and played Syndicalist France.

Syndies go home!

It's a red herring to think that "anarchism" means that nobody can be in charge of anything, at any time. Leaders exist, and people will follow them, but under an anarchist system, they can be recalled and replaced by their subordinates if they do a bad job.

I'm busy with homework, but I'd just like to note that an "anarchist state" is an oxymoron. Anarchism is anti-state, anti-hierarchy, and anti-ruler.

I sense a tension between these statements, depending on Dozebom's intended meaning.

I mis-spoke slightly. I meant unjustified hierarchy - there is a hierarchy of skill, so ferex, a more skilled worker might be chosen to work on an important task that lives depend on. This is okay. There is a hierarchy of trust - a more trusted member of the community is more likely to convince other people. This is okay too. It is the unjustified hierarchies of power that anarchism opposes.

I could even conceive of a person or council of "leaders" in an anarchist society, but the crucial difference between an anleader and a ruler would be that the anleader has no power of their own; all power they have comes from the people, and transparency and such would be crucial. They would also be less common - especially in the CEO/President sense. Take a company as an example. If it were anarchist, instead of a CEO we would have the workers at top, who then delegate leadership to certain people if necessary (someone should oversee X), and so you could have either the delegated leaders or the democratic workers making decisions. In the end, though, the workers would have the final say. This is syndicalism IIRC.

Hey, is this the Anarchism thread?

I'm pretty sure this is the threat where we explore Syndies, both in real life and Kaiserreich, and the implications of them and their wars of aggression/defense against the German Imperialists.

...have anarchists ever fought wars of aggression, though?

Anarchism can have a state-like structure, but it can only rule by consent rather than force.

They might not have rulers, but all forms of anarchism have delegates, which are basically recallable rulers. So there can be something like a state but it does not have coercive force (unless it's self-defense, in which case it does).

So yes, an anarchist society can have police. The police intervene to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from oppressors. They are delegated to do so by the collective. The same with military. Militias are volunteer organizations, and their duties are to protect the collective from external threats. A governing council can convene and the various collectives agree to send delegates who can vote on matters. That's not a problem for anarchism at all. But the council cannot turn around and force it's will on the collectives. The council makes the agreements, and the collectives carry out the rulings. Of course, the same structure exists inside a collective. If a collective doesn't like it's own internal delegates, they get voted out. If you don't like the will of the majority of your collective, you leave and start your own one or join a different one. That's the main difference between anarchist structures and statist structures. In a statist structure, the council rules the town and anyone in it has to abide by what the council orders. But in anarchism, a collective's rules only applies to it's own members and membership is voluntary.

This is accurate, but I'd like to note that there are many forms of anarchism - collectivist vs individualist, mainly, with variants such as syndicalism and anarcha-feminism (abolish the patriarchy along with all other rulers) and (ugh) "anarcho"-capitalism.

[Ghazkull]

...have anarchists ever fought wars of aggression, though?

Well going from the Kaiserreich Universe, where germany won world war one, we have a syndicalist france.
During a Game as france you can decide if you want to be classicaly Syndicalism (at least as i understood it), sorrelians, totalists (stalinists) or yes anarchists.
However in all four cases you will declare war on germany sooner or later mostly due to your own aggression or seeming provocations by the germans.

That fictious Universe aside though, wasn't there a string of anarchist bombings in the early 1900s? One could construe it as a war of aggression.

Then there was the Russian Civil War, with apart from Reds and Whites we also have the Green and Black Armies which could be seen as Anarchist Factions, however whether that could be counted as war of aggression is an entirely different question.

Then there is also the Army of Hell during the (i think it was) Bolivian War of Independence, which thought against Bolivar and the Spaniards.

But yeah since there is no Anarchist State as such known to me i dont think there were any wars of aggression.

[Grim Portent]

I don't think it would be fair to consider any of the anarchist bombings or rebellions as wars of aggression, they were more akin to attempted coups and attempts to liberate themselves from what was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as oppressors.

Unless a Hippy commune decided to annex a town through force and I've just never heard of it I don't think there's ever been a situation where anarchists have sought out enemies that weren't actively in authority above them or attempting to be so. Kind of goes against the core ideology.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Yes, anarchist aggression is only against the rulers. For anarchists to attempt to gain power over others... that would be antithetical to their entire worldview. Unless they were quite skilled at doublethink, I don't think anarchists would do that.

[misko27]

...have anarchists ever fought wars of aggression, though?

Well going from the Kaiserreich Universe, where germany won world war one, we have a syndicalist france.
During a Game as france you can decide if you want to be classicaly Syndicalism (at least as i understood it), sorrelians, totalists (stalinists) or yes anarchists.
However in all four cases you will declare war on germany sooner or later mostly due to your own aggression or seeming provocations by the germans.

Germany is just as capable of being the aggressor in the second Weltkrieg, depending on their path. The war must happen, but how it happens is for RNG to decide.

That fictious Universe aside though, wasn't there a string of anarchist bombings in the early 1900s? One could construe it as a war of aggression.

A little bit more than a mere string of bombings here and there. William McKinley was killed my a self-proclaimed anarchist, although note "self-proclaimed" as the operative word. Also. anything that happens in Russia can be safely assumed to have been extensively gruesome for all involved, and their anarchists are no exception, here I point to assassination of reformist Tsar Alexander II, and his replacement by his unsurprisingly angry son, who reversed his fathers liberal reforms in favor of reliance on the overwhelming power of organized state repression. Again another place where the operating word is "self-proclaimed", but the distinction between a self-proclaimed anarchist and an actual one is arguably academic.

Yes, anarchist aggression is only against the rulers. For anarchists to attempt to gain power over others... that would be antithetical to their entire worldview. Unless they were quite skilled at doublethink, I don't think anarchists would do that.

Hah, You talk with the air and eagerness of the evangelist.

[MrWiggles]

Yes, anarchist aggression is only against the rulers. For anarchists to attempt to gain power over others... that would be antithetical to their entire worldview. Unless they were quite skilled at doublethink, I don't think anarchists would do that.

They wouldnt need any double think. It would need an idealogical moral position to take action on. The 'I dont like your hats' reason for war. There is nothing stopping AnCans from doing that. At most, they would splinter, and those that dont find the war morally justified would sit out, and you'd have two or more Ancan groups.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Just as capable" might be a bit of an error. The AI has a 1% chance of agreeing to surrender Alsace-Lorraine to France, but that just leads to a further event where the French realize that the bourgeoisie must be weak to agree to such a thing, and automatically declare war.

Although, that makes me realize I have no idea what happens if the Entente party-crashes France before then.