• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whats worse?

What is worse Communism or Anarchy?

  • Communism

    Votes: 11 61.1%
  • Anarchy

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Both the same

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • Caspar the friendly ghost

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18
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.
 
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 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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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:
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.
 
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
 
(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..
 
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:
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.
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom