Quote Originally Posted by reaper239 View Post
you talk about them being anarchists and semi marxist and militaristic. the problem is those are completely opposite 'philosophies'. anarchy is a lack of organized rule, while marxism and militarism (also known as fascism) revolve around tight control by a small ruling elite and absolute rule. now you can have a marxist society that looks anarchistc on the fringes; at the very bottom rung there are people the 'law' doesn't reach and as the most plentiful class of people, to outsiders it looks like anarchy, but anarchy and marxism/fascism are two opposite ends of the spectrum. if you'd like some help developing a social structure for this group i'd be happy to help you pound out the details. i know a bit about political philosophies and what i don't know i can find out very easily. no worries about credit or anything like that, i'm willing to 'donate' my help, if you want it.
Any help that anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated. But what I mean when I say "Anarchistic and Marxist" is that their rather marxist when it comes to their enemies, they either want to control what the enemy controls (and will try to take whatever it may be they want with force) or to entirely eliminate the opposition...or both. They aren't very fascist though, mainly because of the multi-cultural and multi-racial aspects of their group. Because of these 2 aspects that play a large role in keeping this group united and trusting one another. Gender equality is also a major part of this group simply because (and I guess this could be considered as an homage to Scratch) if it wasn't for the females doing everything they could from the outside to do things like free prisoners and defending places like gun shops (that they planned on using as armories if they were to escape) from the looters for instance, this group most likely wouldn't be the power that it is. Their Anarchistic in the sense that yes they do have a slightly militaristic ranking system/order but it is by no means involuntary. All Anarchist are against involuntary hierarchy, systems etc. But most if not all Anarchists agree with voluntary order such as this. Much like a group their allied with they don't technically have "leaders" it's a very to each his own mentality most of the time, they do however instead of leaders they have people who pretty much act as place holders. Yes they do give instructions and orders but these people are only in the position that they are because they needed a people who could act as strategists and tactician of sorts. This is sort of the democratic aspect of this group because they all essentially "voted" (for lack of a better word) for these people in higher positions that can pretty can look at a map of an area and distribute man power as need. But these people aren't soldiers and the people they "voted" for aren't generals of any kind.

"Damn near each one of them is like a balance between a disciplined well trained soldier and a fucking roguish Guerilla revolutionary or something..." an exert/quote from an American soldier describing how he views this groups members.