[Suggestion] Left-Wing Anarchy?

[Real Sperland]

I am an Anarchist. For a while now I have been trying to make a real anarchy on Nationstates. Not the Chaotic kind. Not the capitalistic kind either. I realized that you cannot create a real anarchy on this game. You have to be a right wing capitalist in order to do that. All other ideologies are displayed on this game. Anarchism is not.

Anarchism is Anti-state, anti-hierarchy and anti-capitalist. It is annoying that you have to be right wing i order to be in anarchy.
Is there any chance this can be changed?

[Dalaen]

Dear Real Sperland,

True Anarchy is Freedom of Economy, Freedom of Politics and Freedom of Civil rights. Anarchy is Neo-Liberalism. No government. No state. You do not get to decide how someone else engages with the economy or trades with each other, because you are anarchistic.

Libertarian Collectivism, envisioned as a voluntary sharing of wealth is mimicked under "Left Wing Utopia or Civil Rights Lovefest^Source, these are high in Political Freedoms and Civil Freedoms, but voluntarily deny themselves Economic freedoms. Voluntarily agreeing to share means voluntarily agreeing not to trade freely.

I hope this clears up a misunderstanding that Left Wing Anarchy is not represented. In this system voluntary restrictions are counted as if they were legal restrictions.

Yours Sincerely,

Dalaen

[Trotterdam]

I find it confusing how there can exist both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. They can't both be right.

How are two nations supposed to be able to follow opposite ideologies when neither has any organized government capable of motivating people to act in any particular way?

[Our Town Restored]

I find it confusing how there can exist both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. They can't both be right.

How are two nations supposed to be able to follow opposite ideologies when neither has any organized government capable of motivating people to act in any particular way?

Clearly because they don't want a FULL (actual) anarchy, but rather their romanticization of anarchy. More an illusion of anarchy, with a government still in place.
How there could be even an illusion of anarchy with a government baffles me.

[Trotterdam]

Clearly because they don't want a FULL (actual) anarchy, but rather their romanticization of anarchy. More an illusion of anarchy, with a government still in place.
How there could be even an illusion of anarchy with a government baffles me.

Oh hey, you're that guy! Not often I meet the same people on the forum as I do on RMBs.

Like I said once back on your RMB: what we really need is some anarcho-totalitarianists.

[New Sperland]

Dear Real Sperland,

True Anarchy is Freedom of Economy, Freedom of Politics and Freedom of Civil rights. Anarchy is Neo-Liberalism. No government. No state. You do not get to decide how someone else engages with the economy or trades with each other, because you are anarchistic.

Libertarian Collectivism, envisioned as a voluntary sharing of wealth is mimicked under "Left Wing Utopia or Civil Rights Lovefest^Source, these are high in Political Freedoms and Civil Freedoms, but voluntarily deny themselves Economic freedoms. Voluntarily agreeing to share means voluntarily agreeing not to trade freely.

I hope this clears up a misunderstanding that Left Wing Anarchy is not represented. In this system voluntary restrictions are counted as if they were legal restrictions.

Yours Sincerely,

Dalaen

Anarcho-Capitalism is not anarchism. To suggest it is is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Anarchism is a form of Socialism. Everyone equal. In an anarchic society everything would decentralized. In a capitalistic society the rich would be free to get even richer, they would be able to create there own private armies. Then they could crush anyone who doesn't do what they say, therefore it is a dictatorship. Anarchism is anti-capitalistic, to suggest it is not is a lie.

I find it confusing how there can exist both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. They can't both be right.

How are two nations supposed to be able to follow opposite ideologies when neither has any organized government capable of motivating people to act in any particular way?

They wouldn't have a government, anarchists have created organizations to organize communities. To say you couldn't organize communities is absurd.

I find it confusing how there can exist both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists. They can't both be right.

How are two nations supposed to be able to follow opposite ideologies when neither has any organized government capable of motivating people to act in any particular way?

Clearly because they don't want a FULL (actual) anarchy, but rather their romanticization of anarchy. More an illusion of anarchy, with a government still in place.
How there could be even an illusion of anarchy with a government baffles me.

There would't be any government at all.

Clearly because they don't want a FULL (actual) anarchy, but rather their romanticization of anarchy. More an illusion of anarchy, with a government still in place.
How there could be even an illusion of anarchy with a government baffles me.

Oh hey, you're that guy! Not often I meet the same people on the forum as I do on RMBs.

Like I said once back on your RMB: what we really need is some anarcho-totalitarianists.

Anarcho-totalitarianism would leave the rich to do whatever they want creating a dictatorship. Why would't they? They are corrupted by huge amounts of money. They would want more.

Anarcho-Capitalism is highly hypocritical.

[Dalaen]

Dear New Sperland,

We have read your response and considered it at length. We cannot agree with the idea that Anarchism is a form of "Socialism" as it is strictly not about having any centralization, no leader, no authority, no government. The current definition of the word Anarchy is as follows:

Anarchy Noun
1. A state of society without government or law

The current definition of the world Socialism is as follows:

Socialism Noun
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The current theory of State Function are concisely demonstrated in this wikipedia article. Anarchism does not promote any form of equality, there is no assumption that everyone is equal, only that everyone is equally free to commit violence as they please without fear of retribution from a form of government. Should violence be permitted by anyone against anyone due to the absence of the rule of law, then logically, any one could under their own steam form a business and use immoral practices in order to gain an advantage, due to the absence of government there would be no one to tell them otherwise. Gangs are common place in states that have fallen into Anarchy examples can be shown anywhere where the Government has fallen. Libya for example is a recent example of a nation falling into anarchy, though we believe it is not currently in anarchy as the people follow an alternative.

Anarcho-Capitalism is different from Anarchy, in so much that Social and Political laws still exist, but laws regulating the economy do not. We do not equate Neo-liberalism with Anarcho-Capitalism however this may be a mistake on our part. However Anarchy is the absence of the rule of law, utterly libertarian and utterly free market. Social, Political and Economic as we indicated in our previous message. Truly Anarchistic societies given the above definitions typically do not last for very long at all.

We take your consideration that Anarchism is anti-capitalistic, however Capitalism in many regards is considered to be "Free Market thinking" or Libertarian Economic ideals. We have not seen any articles that suggest Capitalism is about oppression of economic forces, quite the contrary.

In an "Anarchistic" society, anyone is free to do as they wish, whether that be the Rich choosing to get richer, whether that be gangs terrorizing the neighbourhood or a religious cult sacrificing your nearest and dearest for the glory of Violet. To say otherwise is to ignore centuries of thought about what it is to be an Anarchy or without government, without the rule of law.

We shall leave you with a quote by Aeschylus,

Neither a life of anarchy nor one beneath a despot should you praise; to all that lies in the middle a god has given excellence.

Yours Sincerely,

Dalaen

[New Sperland]

Dear New Sperland,

We have read your response and considered it at length. We cannot agree with the idea that Anarchism is a form of "Socialism" as it is strictly not about having any centralization, no leader, no authority, no government. The current definition of the word Anarchy is as follows:

Anarchy Noun
1. A state of society without government or law

The current definition of the world Socialism is as follows:

Socialism Noun
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The current theory of State Function are concisely demonstrated in this wikipedia article. Anarchism does not promote any form of equality, there is no assumption that everyone is equal, only that everyone is equally free to commit violence as they please without fear of retribution from a form of government. Should violence be permitted by anyone against anyone due to the absence of the rule of law, then logically, any one could under their own steam form a business and use immoral practices in order to gain an advantage, due to the absence of government there would be no one to tell them otherwise. Gangs are common place in states that have fallen into Anarchy examples can be shown anywhere where the Government has fallen. Libya for example is a recent example of a nation falling into anarchy, though we believe it is not currently in anarchy as the people follow an alternative.

Anarcho-Capitalism is different from Anarchy, in so much that Social and Political laws still exist, but laws regulating the economy do not. We do not equate Neo-liberalism with Anarcho-Capitalism however this may be a mistake on our part. However Anarchy is the absence of the rule of law, utterly libertarian and utterly free market. Social, Political and Economic as we indicated in our previous message. Truly Anarchistic societies given the above definitions typically do not last for very long at all.

We take your consideration that Anarchism is anti-capitalistic, however Capitalism in many regards is considered to be "Free Market thinking" or Libertarian Economic ideals. We have not seen any articles that suggest Capitalism is about oppression of economic forces, quite the contrary.

In an "Anarchistic" society, anyone is free to do as they wish, whether that be the Rich choosing to get richer, whether that be gangs terrorizing the neighbourhood or a religious cult sacrificing your nearest and dearest for the glory of Violet. To say otherwise is to ignore centuries of thought about what it is to be an Anarchy or without government, without the rule of law.

We shall leave you with a quote by Aeschylus,

Neither a life of anarchy nor one beneath a despot should you praise; to all that lies in the middle a god has given excellence.

Yours Sincerely,

Dalaen

1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

This contradicts your argument. In an anarcho-communist society all the land would be owned by the community as a whole. In an anarcho-Capitalist society it would be owned by one person or COMPANY Think about this.

[Dalaen]

Dear New Sperland

We have answered your questions as best we can with both evidence and sources. There is already a "Left Wing Anarchy" it is called: Left-Wing Utopia. You may call it whatever you wish, there are alternative ways to interact with Nationstates by switching themes, these will yield different names.

Our top librarians have been scouring the archives and have come up with article on the names of the government types. Although we are unsure how accurate this remains considering it was posted almost six years prior.

Yours Sincerely,

Dalaen

In Addendum

You may wish to give this site: https://nsindex.net/wiki/World_Assembly_Category a quick read, in case you find something more to your liking.

[Ratateague]

Not to be a stickler or anything, but Left-Wing Utopia is more along the lines of Parecon or Left Communism. Moving towards more economic freedom gives you libertarian socialism, mutualism, and Anarcho- varieties of leftism. And no, Anarchy is not neo-liberalism. At the very minimum it would be Individualist Anarchism, Green Anarchism, and leftwards.

[Trotterdam]

Anarcho-Capitalism is not anarchism. To suggest it is is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Anarchism is a form of Socialism. Everyone equal. In an anarchic society everything would decentralized. In a capitalistic society the rich would be free to get even richer, they would be able to create there own private armies. Then they could crush anyone who doesn't do what they say, therefore it is a dictatorship. Anarchism is anti-capitalistic, to suggest it is not is a lie.

Anarchy is the effective complete lack of laws, because there is no government capable of enforcing any laws. This includes economic laws. Without laws, people will do as they wish, and wealth will accumulate in those who can earn it through their own ruthlessness, without regard for whether they "deserve" it.

Case in point: whatever your quibbles with the current government may be, creating such organizations is not currently illegal. (Various countries do have voluntary farming communes.) Nonetheless, they have failed to dominate the economy. Having even less legal protection would not help them.

They wouldn't have a government, anarchists have created organizations to organize communities. To say you couldn't organize communities is absurd.

If participation in the organizations is voluntary, then the rich people who would be more benefitted by exploiting capitalism are not going to cooperate, making them useless. If participation in the organizations is not voluntary, then they're governments.

Anarcho-totalitarianism would leave the rich to do whatever they want creating a dictatorship. Why would't they? They are corrupted by huge amounts of money. They would want more.

Anarcho-Capitalism is highly hypocritical.

Someone doesn't have a sense of humor.

This contradicts your argument. In an anarcho-communist society all the land would be owned by the community as a whole. In an anarcho-Capitalist society it would be owned by one person or COMPANY Think about this.

In an anarchy, all land would be owned by whoever can seize and defend it by force of arms, because there is nobody capable of enforcing any laws against this.

[Ratateague]

Anarchy is the effective complete lack of laws, because there is no government capable of enforcing any laws. This includes economic laws. Without laws, people will do as they wish, and wealth will accumulate in those who can earn it through their own ruthlessness, without regard for whether they "deserve" it.

Er, let me stop you right there. Anarchy is the absence of rulers and leaders, by the meaning and the very etymology of the word. Not laws. Many anarchists still advocate for good laws, they just want individual autonomy. In many anarchist schools of thought, laws are achieved by collective enforcement.

[Trotterdam]

I said effective complete lack of laws. Without a police and court system capable of enforcing them, they're not laws, they're polite suggestions.

A law against, say, stealing is useless if it applies to everyone in society except for the thieves.

[Bears Armed]

Anarchy is the effective complete lack of laws, because there is no government capable of enforcing any laws. This includes economic laws. Without laws, people will do as they wish, and wealth will accumulate in those who can earn it through their own ruthlessness, without regard for whether they "deserve" it.

Er, let me stop you right there. Anarchy is the absence of rulers and leaders, by the meaning and the very etymology of the word. Not laws. Many anarchists still advocate for good laws, they just want individual autonomy. In many anarchist schools of thought, laws are achieved by collective enforcement.

That isn't "anarchy", it's "participatory democracy".

[Ratateague]

Er, let me stop you right there. Anarchy is the absence of rulers and leaders, by the meaning and the very etymology of the word. Not laws. Many anarchists still advocate for good laws, they just want individual autonomy. In many anarchist schools of thought, laws are achieved by collective enforcement.

That isn't "anarchy", it's "participatory democracy".

It's generally a good idea not to confuse ideology with methodology.

[New Sperland]

I said effective complete lack of laws. Without a police and court system capable of enforcing them, they're not laws, they're polite suggestions.

A law against, say, stealing is useless if it applies to everyone in society except for the thieves.

There is one obvious law everyone should follow. Do not trespass. if someone murdered someone else, then obviously they should receive a punishment. If they steal something or rape etc. they should obviously be punished. I think we should at least try anarchism. Otherwise we wouldn't know for sure. Anarchy translates from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning without leader of without government. There should be one obvious law. Do not trespass.

[Ratateague]

I said effective complete lack of laws. Without a police and court system capable of enforcing them, they're not laws, they're polite suggestions.

A law against, say, stealing is useless if it applies to everyone in society except for the thieves.

There is one obvious law everyone should follow. Do not trespass. if someone murdered someone else, then obviously they should receive a punishment. If they steal something or rape etc. they should obviously be punished. I think we should at least try anarchism. Otherwise we wouldn't know for sure. Anarchy translates from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning without leader of without government. There should be one obvious law. Do not trespass.

I whole-heartedly disagree. A law against trespassing of that nature involves a heavy dose of propertarianism. Natural Law only goes so far as what is guaranteed to a person, especially where Lockean Proviso is involved. Besides, trespassing in itself is harmless. Who is the victim? Broken twigs? By hoarding land, you rob others of the opportunity to experience beauty.

eh... this is starting to get off-topic and more NSG-ish, so I'm done here.

[New Sperland]

There is one obvious law everyone should follow. Do not trespass. if someone murdered someone else, then obviously they should receive a punishment. If they steal something or rape etc. they should obviously be punished. I think we should at least try anarchism. Otherwise we wouldn't know for sure. Anarchy translates from the Greek word 'anarchos' meaning without leader of without government. There should be one obvious law. Do not trespass.

I whole-heartedly disagree. A law against trespassing of that nature involves a heavy dose of propertarianism. Natural Law only goes so far as what is guaranteed to a person, especially where Lockean Proviso is involved. Besides, trespassing is harmless. Who is the victim? Broken twigs? By hoarding land, you rob others of the opportunity to experience beauty.

Everyone wants to be safe. No one wants to be murdered, raped or robbed etc. so everyone will want to get rid of criminals.

[Analeuthocosia]

lmao @ the political wanking in this thread

I will say
(a) This game is not meant to be realistic! It is satirical and presents extreme caricatures of each government type (e.g. anarchies that are all ruled by biker gangs, etc). Thus an argument that e.g. capitalism is a system of low rather than high economic freedom, or whatever, is totally irrelevant.
(b) You can have an Anarchy classification without private enterprise. It's not necessarily easy. I think it may be better to start with a planned economy and gradually increase "economic freedom" without touching the issues that privatise anything, but I've never tried the other way (developing high economic freedom first and then trying to instate communism).