• 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
celticwar17

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Communism or anarchy?
 
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.
 
I would say communism, because it quickly mutates into brutal totalitarian dictatorships.

Anarchy, on the other hand, quickly mutates into something else... possibly something tolerable and maybe even good.


Neither are desirable, but I'd rather gamble for a win than immediately fail.
 
Last edited:
other said:
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.
Click to expand...

The question was "what's worse." So, it seems to me that your answer to the question is actually Communism?
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
The question was "what's worse." So, it seems to me that your answer to the problem is actually Communism?
Click to expand...

yeah, communism is worse.

when I wrote that I had reversed the question in my mind... but I voted correctly.... I'll edit, thanks.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this, except that some systems are worse than others. However, human behavior is the root problem.
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 have to consider outcomes, though, because I am much more of a realist than an idealist.
 
No doubt communism.
 
Both are extreme, and result in the break down of society. In both scenarios, lots of people would die. There would be very little economic success because neither central planning nor no planning at all will work.
 
I have to consider outcomes, though, because I am much more of a realist than an idealist.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

I can agree with this, except that some systems are worse than others. However, human behavior is the root problem.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. However I look at communism as just as demanding -- actually more demanding -- in the sense you use, than anarchism. But they are both idealism of the same stripe, and manifest in reality as transitional states collapsing (or growing) into something more stable (less demanding).
 
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helvidius said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You need to define those words a little better. If you're talking about Marxism and Anarcho-syndicalism, the systems are pretty much indistinguishable. You could also be talking about Soviet-style socialism and anarcho-capitalism, which are about as far apart as two systems can get. Or you could be talking about chaotic, unstructured anarchy, as in Somalia. I'll go ahead and assume you're talking about chaotic anarchy and Soviet-style socialism, in which case I'd say anarchy is the better choice. Chaos means opportunity.
 
megaprogman said:
Totalitarianism would be inevitable in either case,
Click to expand...

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.

however, in the communism scenario, I think I would be less likely to die.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Well communism and anarchism both strive for the same goals per say.
But what form of communism and what form of anarchism?
 
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
other said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

other said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom