View Poll Results: What is worse Communism or Anarchy?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Communism

    12 57.14%
  • Anarchy

    6 28.57%
  • Both the same

    2 9.52%
  • Caspar the friendly ghost

    1 4.76%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Whats worse?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    426

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    If I had to choose which to live in, I'd choose an anarchy. Not that I like either one.

    So I guess...for me personally, I'd say communism.
    You're either crazy or Mad Max, tess. Any form of order would be preferable to anarchy for me. Order forms inevitably anyway. Absolute disorder would never last. Communism could be pruned up to work better, really. The faulty point is when the people abuse the system, kinda like our own.

    I'd go with Communism.
    Last edited by makkam; 07-08-11 at 08:49 PM.

  2. #22
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Totalitarianism would be inevitable in either case, however, in the communism scenario, I think I would be less likely to die. However, if you want to battle during anarchy go ahead, but I suspect you will be too busy simply trying to stay alive and away from the bandits, lack of infrastructure, factions/gangs trying to survive, the lack of available food, the uselessness of all forms of currency, etc.
    I just look at it this way - better to die fighting for something you can believe in - like your own life, your family, whatever..... than die slow, controlled, arduous life of starvation and hoplessness. I'm using the Communist block circa 1975-1980 Poland / Romania as my communist example. I don't have an example of what anarchy would be - Somalia maybe? I'd still take a anarchy - I'd move into the hills and go all Jerimiah Johnson.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    426

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I just look at it this way - better to die fighting for something you can believe in - like your own life, your family, whatever..... than die slow, controlled, arduous life of starvation and hopelessness. I'm using the Communist block circa 1975-1980 Poland / Romania as my communist example. I don't have an example of what anarchy would be - Somalia maybe? I'd still take a anarchy - I'd move into the hills and go all Jerimiah Johnson.
    No, Somalia has order also. It's just feudal order where a bunch of warlords and opportunists carve out their own area and fight over the rest. Absolute disorder...I couldn't envision it lasting more than a week.

  4. #24
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    why do you think totalitarianism would be inevitable after anarchism? Seems like any number of different outcomes would be possible, the most likely being some form of manorialism or warlordism, where certain familial groups accumulate land and power. It'd be a few steps before any single person or group could gain total control over everyone, and until then it might be turned in another direction.

    Communism, on the other hand, needs a lot of central power to ensure the proper distribution of labor/capital/etc, and to prevent people from reacquiring private property. It starts, for all practical purposes, as a ready-made totalitarian power.
    I may have not used the correct term there, but basically, a strong man would rule our lives. As far as I know of history, this pretty much happens after any total collapse of government. (which would be different from recent events in a place like Egypt or the early US which maintained some functions of government in which to spring a better government from.) It seems that having some level of social organization is required to create a better system, even if that level of social organization is incomplete or not completely functional.

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    I don't know... You might live a little longer, because starvation can take a while...

    But really, as you mentioned earlier, anarchism would lead to bloodshed, but so would communism. In communism it would just come a little later -- problem is, it's much more systematic and insidious. Anarchism would be random violence between groups, communism devolves into purges, secret police, rationing, extreme rationing, confiscation, witch hunts for internal subversives, etc.
    Its possible I might live longer, but I think the probability of that is lower. For example in Russia, millions died, but it was a smaller % (11% by calculating USSR death (average of listed estimates) and population figures from wikipedia) of the population than in Somalia (15%).
    Last edited by tacomancer; 07-08-11 at 08:58 PM.

  5. #25
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I just look at it this way - better to die fighting for something you can believe in - like your own life, your family, whatever..... than die slow, controlled, arduous life of starvation and hoplessness. I'm using the Communist block circa 1975-1980 Poland / Romania as my communist example. I don't have an example of what anarchy would be - Somalia maybe? I'd still take a anarchy - I'd move into the hills and go all Jerimiah Johnson.
    From the figures I could gather, death is not inevitable in either scenario. However, look at what happened after the USSR collapsed vs Somalia. While either system would suck, Russia has at least recovered somewhat and people have become prosperous much more quickly than it appears to be happening in Somalia. From a long term perspective, while I may die in a communist system, it may be better for my children. China is prospering, Mongolia doesn't suck, most of the Eastern European countries are doing fairly well.

  6. #26
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by makkam View Post
    No, Somalia has order also. It's just feudal order where a bunch of warlords and opportunists carve out their own area and fight over the rest. Absolute disorder...I couldn't envision it lasting more than a week.
    Is there any anarchist states in contemporary history or do we have to go back to ancient times? I have to admit, I know little about anarchy other than through the punk movement of the 1970's and what little I've read in books.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #27
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    From the figures I could gather, death is not inevitable in either scenario. However, look at what happened after the USSR collapsed vs Somalia. While either system would suck, Russia has at least recovered somewhat and people have become prosperous much more quickly than it appears to be happening in Somalia. From a long term perspective, while I may die in a communist system, it may be better for my children. China is prospering, Mongolia doesn't suck, most of the Eastern European countries are doing fairly well.
    I guess it has hope if you can outlast it... not sure about anarchy though - my view of it would be you struggle to survive, work together, there would be groups, neighbors, people you trust and those you don't. I don't see it as an every man for himself type world - humans are too social so there would be bands. If anything I'd think it would be somewhat clannish. I could live with that much easier than under a communistic control.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  8. #28
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I may have not used the correct term there, but basically, a strong man would rule our lives. As far as I know of history, this pretty much happens after any total collapse of government. (which would be different from recent events in a place like Egypt or the early US which maintained some functions of government in which to spring a better government from.) It seems that having some level of social organization is required to create a better system, even if that level of social organization is incomplete or not completely functional.
    Yes, but the "strong men" did not rule in a totalitarian fashion, or rule others lives. In anthropology or archaeological studies, strong man societies formed before chiefdoms, and are indicated by a man capable of providing leadership/direction/organization, without the accompanying huge rise in status you see in chiefs. When the status does eventually start to show, he's classified as a "chief."

    Essentially, strongmen got the shaft. They had to rule by natural talent and charisma, were provided relatively small compensation for their trouble, and still could not wield unquestioned authority over others. Their societies could organize relatively small-scale irrigation projects and boundary ditches, but nobody was treated like a slave (forced to work) and his title most likely wouldn't pass to any direct heir, it just moved to the next capable leader.

    I don't think living in such a group would be too bad. Chiefdoms could be really bad, depending on your status.

    Its possible I might live longer, but I think the probability of that is lower. For example in Russia, millions died, but it was a smaller % (11% by calculating USSR death(average of listed estimates) and population figures from wikipedia) of the population than in Somalia (15%).
    I see. I think I am also taking quality of life more into consideration... Not that folks in Somalia have it good, but I think not all anarchies have the same level of sectarian tension and resourse scarcity as Somalia. Many certainly would though.
    Last edited by other; 07-08-11 at 09:13 PM.

  9. #29
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I guess it has hope if you can outlast it... not sure about anarchy though - my view of it would be you struggle to survive, work together, there would be groups, neighbors, people you trust and those you don't. I don't see it as an every man for himself type world - humans are too social so there would be bands. If anything I'd think it would be somewhat clannish. I could live with that much easier than under a communistic control.
    I think the circumstances in which tribalism could arise are more prevalent in a low technology situation and a cultural context that does not have the concept of nation or nationality, but is defined by ethnic or familial relationships, while in today's context of whole nations, people will seek to control the whole thing, creating a single or perhaps a series of civil wars that would be very difficult to not be caught up in, even if people sought to avoid it.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    426

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    Essentially, strongmen got the shaft. They had to rule by natural talent and charisma, were provided relatively small compensation for their trouble, and still could not wield unquestioned authority over others. Their societies could organize relatively small-scale irrigation projects and boundary ditches, but nobody was treated like a slave (forced to work) and his title most likely wouldn't pass to any direct heir, it just moved to the next capable leader.
    That does sound ideal. A much more "village" style life where everyone has a say, but there is some form of general leadership and direction.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •