celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Communism or anarchy?
I would say anarchy, because it quickly mutates into something else... possibly something tolerable and maybe even good.
Communism, on the other hand, quickly mutates into brutal totalitarian dictatorships.
Neither are desirable, but I'd rather gamble for a win than immediately fail.
The question was "what's worse." So, it seems to me that your answer to the problem is actually Communism?
Anarchy is an extreme intermediary state. It has almost no permanency, even in technologically stagnated time periods.
I wish people would stop holding systems responsible for outcomes. A system succeeds or fails because the people who take part in it develop the morals and habits necessary to make it work.
I have no preference. Both anarchy and communism are highly demanding systems that people are unlikely to "rise to the occasion" to make work.
I wish people would stop holding systems responsible for outcomes. A system succeeds or fails because the people who take part in it develop the morals and habits necessary to make it work.
I have to consider outcomes, though, because I am much more of a realist than an idealist.
Well, I agree with your assessment that anarchism is only an intermediary, but that is only taking the outcome into consideration. There are anarchists who believe in anarchy as a stable end-state.
I can agree with this, except that some systems are worse than others. However, human behavior is the root problem.
So am I. I don't believe humans can obtain more than a modicum of the virtue necessary to maintain any kind of society very well. That modicum is the difference between success and decline, however.
I'm aware that noting that anarchy was intermediary contradicted my subsequent assertion about the importance of virtues over specific political systems in the acquisition of success, but I was working from the idea that anarchy required "that much more" additional virtue.
Some system impose heavier demands than others. I suppose that makes them "worse", though a less sympathetic interpretation is that humans aren't worthy of them.
I will say that anarchy is worse, because I believe it will likely be more bloody and deadly than communism as it would inevitably give rise to sectarian violence and then devolve into a dictatorship. At least communism would devolve into a dictatorship without all the bloodshed first.
Wouldn't anarchy then be better? I'd rather a bloody battle to protect my freedoms than simply allow someone to take them all away.
Totalitarianism would be inevitable in either case,
however, in the communism scenario, I think I would be less likely to die.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.