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 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Whats worse?

  1. #31
    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
    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 may start combining yours and Ockham's threads to a single response since they seem to be going among similar lines. But in a nutshell (its further explained in my response to ockham) tribalism could arise, but I don't think the current cultural context is fertile for it. Even in Afghanistan, where we have a period of warlords (probably the closest thing to a chief in the modern era), a group eventually took control of the whole country with deadly results for the population.

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    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.
    Can you name an anarchy (in the modern age) that wasn't bloody? Again, the reason I mention modern is because the concept of nations and nationality changes the game I think.

  2. #32
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Whats worse?

    This is an almost nonsensical question.

    Communism has strict laws leads to collapse every time because it's based on redistribution of wealth and all incentive to work hard goes out the window, making it a race to do the least ans get the most.

    Anarchy is about having no laws or rules and can lead to mob rule death and destruction, by people who want to take what they can get, and yo hell with everything and everyone.

    Both of these are not worth discussing, because they are doomed to failure.
    Last edited by Councilman; 07-08-11 at 09:24 PM.

  3. #33
    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 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.
    Correction. Just looked up the meaning. Apparently it doesn't mean absolute disorder.

  4. #34
    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 Councilman View Post
    This an almost nonsensical question.

    Communism has strict laws leads to collapse every time because it's based on redistribution of wealth and all incentive to work hard goes out the window, making it a race to do the least ans get the most.

    Anarchy is about having no laws or rules and can lead to mob rule death and destruction, by people who want to take what they can get, and yo hell with everything and everyone.

    Both of these are not worth discussing, because they are doomed to failure.
    He might not have taken it as seriously as you did :P

  5. #35
    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 start combining yours and Ockham's threads to a single response since they seem to be going among similar lines. But in a nutshell (its further explained in my response to ockham) tribalism could arise, but I don't think the current cultural context is fertile for it. Even in Afghanistan, where we have a period of warlords (probably the closest thing to a chief in the modern era), a group eventually took control of the whole country with deadly results for the population.



    Can you name an anarchy (in the modern age) that wasn't bloody? Again, the reason I mention modern is because the concept of nations and nationality changes the game I think.

    yeah, its all pretty circumstantial really. In the modern context it's pretty hard to envision any kind of anarchy, aside from somalia, so you're screwed either way. I can't think of any modern example. I'd rather die than live under either regardless... if it was an anarchy, I'd simply try my best to get away from it all. Same w/ communism, but if the state was all powerful, it might just be a little more difficult to get away..

  6. #36
    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
    yeah, its all pretty circumstantial really. In the modern context it's pretty hard to envision any kind of anarchy, aside from somalia, so you're screwed either way. I can't think of any modern example. I'd rather die than live under either regardless... if it was an anarchy, I'd simply try my best to get away from it all. Same w/ communism, but if the state was all powerful, it might just be a little more difficult to get away..
    It seems either situation has its negatives and slightly less negatives (not much in the way of positives). However, knowing how humans have functioned historically, people will commit atrocities in the search for security, food, or other basics. I would be nice to say that we would die fighting for what we believe in, and some do, but generally its a minority of the population and even then, those beliefs can be pretty awful (Islamic fundamentalism). Most people just want to live their life as best they can and not really make waves.

    It is interesting that some in this thread envisioned that romantic notion of being a hero though, even though it is not common in real life.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 07-08-11 at 09:57 PM.

  7. #37
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Whats worse?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    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.
    Thats pretty close to my understanding of the anthropological behaviors of people after a complete collapse. Humans actually get along pretty well in groups up to about 700, where interpersonal relationships are close enough to discourage abuses.

    One thing to keep in mind, and I consider myself an anarchist, is that the common definition of anarchy=chaos came after the "original" movement. It technically means "without a king". As monarchy means "one is king", and democracy means "people are king".

    Classical anarchism is REALLY interesting, and I can totally see why it became a synonym for chaos. All the best games in the world DEPEND on coercion. On the "right" to force someone to do or not do something. Anarchism says you can have all the capitalism you want, but there can be no coercion. No threat or force. I was delighted to find out how well thought out some of the ideas were.

    All people everywhere who live on frontiers live in a functional state of anarchy, where no one has functional authority over anyone else. They work it out and deal with it. The more people there are the less well this works, and eventually the formal structure of some existing culture spreads into the frontier in question and replaces the existing way of doing things.

    I consider myself a practical anarchist, which means I don't think human beings are "equipped" to function in an anarchic state. Some people really ARE happier leaving the decision making and responsibility taking to somebody else. Lots of people are "followers" by nature, some people NEED to lead, most fall somewhere in between. It worked for us for 100,000 years, its in our genes and all of our cultures. That said, self rule should be the ideal striven for.

    Our democracy is limited because true democracy is disfunctional due to human nature. But theoretically true democracy would be the ideal.

    So I support the idea of stateless self rule as the ideal being striven for, as the ultimate goal of of a democratic state, which acknowledges humankinds weaknesses and seeks to prevent concentration of power as a primary tenet.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  8. #38
    Guru
    LuckyDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Carrollton, TX
    Last Seen
    05-13-13 @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,758

    Re: Whats worse?

    Communism, because it completely subordinates the individual (and his energies and desires) to the state. Totally sucks. Always has. Always will.

  9. #39
    Advisor toddwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-11 @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    315

    Re: Whats worse?

    If we're talking about pure communism and pure anarchy, I would say that anarchy would be worse for a society like ours that is large, heterogeneous and detached.

    True communism is democratic at the base not the autocratic systems that were put in place over the last century.
    Last edited by toddwv; 07-08-11 at 10:46 PM.
    God Has Boobs. It's in the Bible.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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