political science nerd coming in w thoughts on anarchy on the dream smp
no one asked for it, but here I am to rant about and overanalyze how different characters on the SMP relate to anarchist beliefs
anarchy is, basically, not just wanting to live without government, but wanting to live without the unjust social hierarchies set up by government.
technoblade, for example, made sure that part of his manifesto states no one will be forced to fight against their will; on the other hand, under a government, everyone is expected to fight for the nation’s agenda - ranboo was expected to follow the butcher army, eret’s knights are expected to fight for the dream smp, etc.
tubbo is probably the best example of someone non-corrupt who is simply diametrically opposed to anarchist beliefs. he is not just representative of the government because techno uses him as that villanious figurehead. tubbo genuinely believes that society best functions under leadership that can be provided by government; but with leadership, comes unjust hierarchies. tubbo wants leadership because he thinks society is most stable and able to function properly when there is a leader at the top to oversee society, people working under that leader - as executioners, enforcers of the law, an administrative body, etc. - and the citizens that live under the government. the creation of hierarchies isn’t inherently a bad thing, in tubbo’s mind; it’s actually necessary to ensure civility and stability.
another person who wants government, but for selfish beliefs that aren’t really against anarchist theory itself, is quackity. quackity benefits from those unjust hierarchies enforced by the existence of a government. his position as vice president or on the cabinet gives him power - soft power, as in, influence over the leaders (getting close to schlatt via romance, manipulating tubbo to follow his plans), and hard power, as in, the authority to make laws and enforce them when he sees fit. quackity wants government not because he thinks it’s necessary for society to function properly, like tubbo, but because he is one of the privileged few who benefits from the power government provides. he would be anti-anarchist simply because anarchists threaten the systems that provide him with power.
eret is... interesting. he seems to understand that the ways governments have functioned in the dream smp and l’manberg have been flawed and actually detrimental, in the long-run. while tubbo still believes in government because the concept makes logical sense to him, so he wants to keep pursuing the experiment until it works out correctly, eret has seen how governments have failed and might want to give up on the concept. eret said that he only wanted to be king because he thought his kingship would allow him to change people’s lives for the better. these are the words of a benevolent leader who thinks their position of power could be enough to dictate people’s lives and steer them towards improvement. but because his kingship never had enough authoritative power - that is, it was never truly seen as legitimate to the people, besides his knights - he never was able to fully harness it to enact these improvements. so now he’s left empty and directionless; the functions of his government were never fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled, so what now?
phil’s pull to anarchism is pretty straightforward. he witnessed how government and the yearn to regain a position in government drove his son to madness, driving phill to kill him at his behest. he’s also a witness to l’manberg’s relentless pursuit of “justice.” for the l’manberg cabinet, a criminal needs to receive retributive justice at all costs, no matter the perpetrator’s current character or actions. phil sides with techno because he’s against this idea of retributive justice - an eye for an eye, a murder demands the death of another. he knows who techno is as a person - someone who combats their own bloodlust everyday, someone who struggles in social situations and with peer pressure - and he knows that techno has changed in his ways, and for phil, that’s enough. he doesn’t think justice needs to be enacted as long as the friend he is defending is not the same person who enacted whatever crime was committed - an ideology directly in contradiction with most governments, which usually enact retributive justice under their justice systems.
ranboo’s character is more a critique of the loyalty governments demand from their citizens, than anything else. governments are created within society under a contract (yay, bringing in john locke into this minecraft roleplay analysis, we love to see it): citizens give up some of their alienable rights in exchange for the protections that come from living under a government. in l’manberg, one of the expectations of this contract is that, if ranboo wants to be included among the citizens of l’manberg and take shelter in its buildings, he is expected to follow their doctrines and join in their cause. but ranboo doesn’t like choosing sides; that is, he doesn’t like showing exclusive loyalty to just one person or group of people - including governments. ranboo thinks loyalty should lie with whoever that individual chooses to trust - the people who show you kindness and mercy and companionship. he doesn’t believe in loyalty towards a nation or even a collective group based on the sole nature of that group; that is to say, just because you are a citizen of x place, doesn’t mean x place should expect your loyalty. does that make him an anarchist...? i’m not totally sure.
