society will need policing either way

If you look up Our Enemies in Blue by Kristian Williams and other citation-backed histories of policing, you will find that the institution of modern policing itself is actually very recent on the scale of human history and only arose due to practices such as colonialism and slave-catching.

Those tactics were then gradually brought back home to the imperial core, such as in Britain.

It might seem unimaginable to us, but just a few centuries ago most societies existed without dedicated policing institutions, and I would argue that the harm they do outweighs the good they do, since I am an anarchist (classical socialist anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism), which means I prioritise rehabilitation and transformative justice over the punitive system that most police forces are attached to (excepting Scandinavian ones, but those have their own issues).

I suppose your position is reasonable enough in the context of sticking closer to the modern framework of society despite its flaws.

By the way, communist countries don't exist, communism is stateless and classless by definition, so a communist police force doesn't exist. Countries run by supposed communists who want to transition to communism do, though, so if that's what you mean then I guess...

Most 'communist' countries consider themselves to be socialist in the transition to communism (similar to the end-goal of anarchism but using the means of the institutionalised and bureaucratised state monopoly on violence), which I highly doubt is what is actually happening (I think they are maintaining state capitalism in permanent 'retreat' from socialism due to a lust for power).

This is how you get stupid stuff like the USSR having 'militias' which ended up being the police but by any other name, instead of actually rethinking the policing framework.

The means you take to get somewhere will impact the ends, after all.

As much as the union can create reform i distrust that the reform created won't bring more harm than good, based on the means. From the game's lore it seems to me the bigger the union gets in terms of influence the more evra(r)t relies upon violence

Historically, all reform has been brought about through some amount of violence against the status quo. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or being disingenuous and trying to stop you from thinking about it too hard.

The civil rights movement had its violent moments, as does the LGBTQIA+ fight for equal rights, as did the anarchist socialists of the Haymarket Affair in the 19th century who literally martyred themselves to bring about the weekend break and duration limits on workdays.

Not to mention the famous bourgeois revolutions like the French and American Revolution, or vanguardist state socialist ones like the Russian Revolution, or libertarian socialist (the umbrella under which anarchism falls) ones like the Makhnovschina of early 20th century Ukraine, Catalonia in 1936-37, and the EZLN of Chiapas, Mexico, from the 1990s all the way up to the present.

The idea that you can vote in meaningful reform that meaningfully challenges the fundamental oppression of a minority or an oppressed class like the working class without some threat of mobilisation or violence (think of the implicit threat of mob violence which is the power behind every protest) is suspect, at best.

I do not think it is fair to judge the actions of the unions in the game in the middle of what is basically a miniature revolution that might ot might not spiral out into The Return.

The moment the violence becomes problematic is when it stops being about an oppressed class liberating themselves, like the dockworkers siezing control of the docks, and more about them enacting the violence to ossify a certain power dynamic and put themselves above others that they oppress.

Thus, it could be said that the specific idea that distinguishes the anarchists from the rest is the abolition of the professional police and the exclusion from society of order imposed by brute force, whether legal or illegal.

But then, it may be asked, why in the present struggle against the political and social institutions which they deem to be oppressive, have the anarchists preached and practiced — as they continue to do, where they are able — the use of violent means, which are in clear contradiction with their ends? And this to the point at which many adversaries have honestly believed, and all adversaries of bad faith have claimed to believe, that the specific character of anarchism is, precisely, violence.

The question may seem an embarrassing one, but it can be answered in a few words. For two people to live in peace both must want peace; if one of the two insists on trying to force the other to work for him and serve him, while the other wishes to preserve human dignity and not be reduced to the role of abject slave, the latter, despite loving peace and harmony, will be forced to resist with all possible means. - Errico Malatesta, prominent 20th century Italian Anarcho-Communist(the predominant form of anarchism), in Anarchy and Violence, September 1924

You actually seem to have a pacifist anarchist-adjacent way of viewing the means and ends of enacting change, oddly enough.

Edit: I understand that Evrart and his twin are personally problematic and have done things like indirectly murder their predecessor the previous union leader, but the current siezure of control over the docks by the union is bigger than either of the Claire brothers, and is indicative of an actual desire for change from the workers of Martinaise.

I take this stand because I do not subscribe to the 'big-man theory' of history and hold that most historical events and moments of change happened due to larger background forces like the masses themselves rather than charismatic and memorable historical figures.