Both the same
Caspar the friendly ghost
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 07:24 PM.
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 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 07:57 PM.
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
Communism, because it completely subordinates the individual (and his energies and desires) to the state. Totally sucks. Always has. Always will.
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 08:46 PM.
God Has Boobs. It's in the Bible.