Anarchy or Communism

[amadeus]

Depends on where I am living at the time.

If I'm living on a farm, I'd say anarchy. I could sustain myself pretty well, doing everything independently from control, and I'd get some guns from the local National Guard post, set up a security perimiter around the farm.

But if I'm living in the city, it's harder to live on a individual basis, under which I'd go for the communism, at least then I'd (hopefully) have something to eat and that.

Another factor is where I'm living in the United States - Montana, the Dakotas, etc. - anarchy would work better here. Low population density versus the very high density of New York and Los Angeles, then communism would work better here.

As communism has "worked" in real life, the bigger cities enjoyed special privlages over the little shantytowns.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

I'd rather be a commie. There would be a better version of law than under anarchy where everyone is a vigilianti(spelling is wrong)

 

[Archer 007]

Duh, Communism. Bad government is better then no government.

 

[Toasty]

Communism. I wouldn't have a hard time adapting, plus I can't bring myself to sleep with a gun under my pillow.

 

[Plastic]

I'd rather live in Anarchy. Then there would be a chance for my stick to be bigger than everyone elses, or at least big enough so people won't want to mess with me. Whereas in Communism, unless I somehow joined the party hierarchy I'd be oppressed.

 

[Narz]

Originally posted by Plastic
I'd rather live in Anarchy. Then there would be a chance for my stick to be bigger than everyone elses, or at least big enough so people won't want to mess with me. Whereas in Communism, unless I somehow joined the party hierarchy I'd be oppressed.

Its all about having the biggest stick!

 

[kmad]

America has butchered the word, "Anarchy".

Anarchy is supposed to mean a society with no governing body; a self-governing community with no hierarchy.

America has destroyed the entire idea of a government-free society. America's dictionary definition of anarchy is disorder and chaos, and is commonly tied to rape and murder.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by kmad
America has destroyed the entire idea of a government-free society. America's dictionary definition of anarchy is disorder and chaos, and is commonly tied to rape and murder.

This is true, that there are two almost entirely different definitions of "anarchy" out there.

Like in CivII, they call the period between governments "anarchy" whereas a better term would probably be "lawlessness", so as not to be confused with the other definition (however, which one came first in usage?).

However, it is this definition of anarchy (lawlessness) that Narz intended for the purposes of this poll, I think, and hell I STILL chose it over communism (read my last post for why).... I think he was trying to ask, "would you rather live without the security of law and order provided by others, or live in a totalitarian state?" Did I interpret your intention rightly, Narz?

 

[kmad]

I understand this but I've been thinking about this for a while, and I thought this would be the proper place to share my ideas

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by kmad
America has butchered the word, "Anarchy".

Anarchy is supposed to mean a society with no governing body; a self-governing community with no hierarchy.

America has destroyed the entire idea of a government-free society. America's dictionary definition of anarchy is disorder and chaos, and is commonly tied to rape and murder.

America has also butchered the word 'communism'.

 

[kmad]

Add 'Capitalism' to that list....historical definition says that it should reward hard work on all levels but instead, present definition tells us that capitalism rewards the capitalists.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by allan2


This is true, that there are two almost entirely different definitions of "anarchy" out there.

Like in CivII, they call the period between governments "anarchy" whereas a better term would probably be "lawlessness", so as not to be confused with the other definition (however, which one came first in usage?).

However, it is this definition of anarchy (lawlessness) that Narz intended for the purposes of this poll, I think, and hell I STILL chose it over communism (read my last post for why).... I think he was trying to ask, "would you rather live without the security of law and order provided by others, or live in a totalitarian state?" Did I interpret your intention rightly, Narz?

You must have a lot of confidence in your fighting skills, Allan. I think you interpreted Narz's question correctly (despite all the remarks about the poor naming he chose being very useful). But I also think that Narz have misused the term "communism" just as much as the term "anarchy". Communism, in itself, is not a bad thing at all. The same question, could be interpreted, if we use the terms by the correct meaning, as a great choice; "if you were to live in a world where social injustice is terminated, would you prefer it to have a government, or that it does not have one?".

Anyway, back to your point; in an lawless environment, no one has any protection against assault except the own muscles. And what one should do against multiple enemies? Join up with some friends so everyone can help in the defense? Creating coletive organizations to achieve common goals is the very base of a society, and doing so would deny the very essence of anarchy.

I really think this thread lacks sense. True communism or true anarchy never existed in the real world so the request that we "think about the real experience, instead of the ideal" can take place. I DO think that, if they trully happen somewhere, many people who fail to get what the concepts mean will be surprised in realizing that living under them won't be a bad thing at all.

Originally posted by kmad
Add 'Capitalism' to that list....historical definition says that it should reward hard work on all levels but instead, present definition tells us that capitalism rewards the capitalists.

I agree, except that I don't think USA (I don't like to refer to USA as "America", because most of America is not USA) has butchered the concept. The gap between what capitalism is and what it's supposed to be happens in the entire world, and the gap existed much before USA became a superpower.

Regards .

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by FredLC
But I also think that Narz have misused the term "communism" just as much as the term "anarchy". Communism, in itself, is not a bad thing at all. The same question, could be interpreted, if we use the terms by the correct meaning, as a great choice; "if you were to live in a world where social injustice is terminated, would you prefer it to have a government, or that it does not have one?".

But he specified that he's talking in terms of "those forms that have occured in the real world". For anarchy: we have never seen in the real world the version of the idealists, yet we HAVE seen cases of total breakdown of law and order. For communism: we have never seen in the real world the version of the idealists (at least on any level higher than a small village), yet we HAVE seen what was called "communism" in the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.

A clearer question along the same vein (but perhaps more clearly revealing) would be, "would you rather have no government (which means what usually happens when there is no government, in the real world), or an absolute dictatorship with the power to mass-purge dissent?"

Anyway, back to your point; in an lawless environment, no one has any protection against assault except the own muscles. And what one should do against multiple enemies? Join up with some friends so everyone can help in the defense? Creating coletive organizations to achieve common goals is the very base of a society, and doing so would deny the very essence of anarchy.

In my first post on this thread, I pointed that out. I think Narz wanted us to suppose that this kind of thing may develop on a localized (and relatively disorganized) level, yet wouldn't on the level of a nation--well, at least for a year, in the hypothetical.

And you are right, in a lawless environment, no one has any protection against assault except their own muscles (or other supplemental hardware ). However, in Stalin's Russia, even those muscles weren't enough to protect you from assault from the NKVD/KGB, which arguably acted just as arbitrarily as the local thug extorting your lunch money, so to speak. Excessive (and arbitrary) state power is at least as dangerous as arbitrary power of a street thug--if the state power is highly organized and efficient, and has resources that can help them find me easily if I tried to hide, I'd actually say more dangerous. And could the intended victims of Stalin's purges bribe their way out of it? Also, if I managed to shoot or beat to death some gang leader's thug in self-defense, would he send another one after me, or perhaps leave me alone (or try to hire me to take his dead hatchetman's place) at that point? Whereas if I managed to kill the KGB agent that kicked down my door at 3 am, I think The State WOULD keep hunting me down--they would feel they had to.

Actually, if there were anarchy here, I'd be holing up with family up in northern Minnesota, a nice, sparsely-populated rural area. I WOULDN'T be living in a city at that point.

You must have a lot of confidence in your fighting skills, Allan.

Well, I can shoot straight .... Haven't practiced in a long time though.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Greadius
If you say its for a year, and then its overthrown, communism would be the more pragmatic choice since the chance of short term damage would be lower (i.e., if I keep quiet and keep my mouth shut it'll be okay in a year)

Problem is it'd probably be "too late" for me--"they" would have record of my Libertarian Party membership, and all of us would presumably be on their preliminary "purge" lists, along with the corporate people, religious leaders, intelligentsia who have spoken "dangerous" opinions on record, etc. Right?

 

[phoenix_night]

@allan2,
you are at far more risk in a state in anarchy. lawlesness is as dangerous as anything and you can't let your hatred for communism cloud over that fact.

 

[philippe]

communism for sure

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by allan2
But he specified that he's talking in terms of "those forms that have occured in the real world". For anarchy: we have never seen in the real world the version of the idealists, yet we HAVE seen cases of total breakdown of law and order. For communism: we have never seen in the real world the version of the idealists (at least on any level higher than a small village), yet we HAVE seen what was called "communism" in the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.

A clearer question along the same vein (but perhaps more clearly revealing) would be, "would you rather have no government (which means what usually happens when there is no government, in the real world), or an absolute dictatorship with the power to mass-purge dissent?"

And as I said, that is exactly where the problem lies. Communism never existed in the real world. Only socialism. And there is a tremendous ideological difference. Communism is as different of socialism as it is from capitalism. Those who call what happened in the Soviet Union “communism” are the ones that are spreading the error.

Even if Narz had used the term socialism, it also would be subject of criticism. First, because it uses the term as a synonym to dictatorship, what is absolutely wrong. There were and are dictatorial capitalistic nations in the world. My own nation was once one, in an example that political freedom does not relate specifically with economical approach.

Also, the problem with SU is that socialism was never supposed to be introduced by an armed revolution. That is a political action, not an economical one. When you use politics to reform your economy, you end up in disaster.

Originally posted by allan2
In my first post on this thread, I pointed that out. I think Narz wanted us to suppose that this kind of thing may develop on a localized (and relatively disorganized) level, yet wouldn't on the level of a nation--well, at least for a year, in the hypothetical.

And you are right, in a lawless environment, no one has any protection against assault except their own muscles (or other supplemental hardware ). However, in Stalin's Russia, even those muscles weren't enough to protect you from assault from the NKVD/KGB, which arguably acted just as arbitrarily as the local thug extorting your lunch money, so to speak. Excessive (and arbitrary) state power is at least as dangerous as arbitrary power of a street thug--if the state power is highly organized and efficient, and has resources that can help them find me easily if I tried to hide, I'd actually say more dangerous. And could the intended victims of Stalin's purges bribe their way out of it? Also, if I managed to shoot or beat to death some gang leader's thug in self-defense, would he send another one after me, or perhaps leave me alone (or try to hire me to take his dead hatchetman's place) at that point? Whereas if I managed to kill the KGB agent that kicked down my door at 3 am, I think The State WOULD keep hunting me down--they would feel they had to.

Actually, if there were anarchy here, I'd be holing up with family up in northern Minnesota, a nice, sparsely-populated rural area. I WOULDN'T be living in a city at that point.

Of course that an armed dictatorship is harder to fight in individual bases. But you are misguided as to what really happens even in dictatorships. They all enforce laws, even if unfair laws. Thus, there are parameters that you can follow to keep minimally safe. In principle, if you obey the dictator’s orders, he won’t send his thugs at you. The choice to confront him may put you in danger, but it’s a choice you can make.

Sure, there can be abuses where a government task force disobey the law and attack the civilians. However, those are exceptions, even if common ones. In general, people know what to do if they want to exist (I don’t call it living) in peace.

In a lawless environment, on the other hand, there are no parameters. Any passer by could rupture your skull because he felt like it. He could burn your house with you sleeping because he didn’t like the flowers in your garden. Simply, there are no standards you can follow to avoid or minimize the chance of confrontation. And even if you can fight an aggressor out one, two or even ten thousand times, you’ll never know if there isn’t another one waiting to attack you just around the corner.

See, human experience shows that even bad rules are better than no rules. Hence Montesquieu’s famous quote: “If men were angels, there would be no need of laws”.

Originally posted by allan2

Well, I can shoot straight .... Haven't practiced in a long time though.

Well, we can play counter-strike some day. Let’s see just how straight you are with your gun .

Regards .

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by phoenix_night
@allan2,
you are at far more risk in a state in anarchy. lawlesness is as dangerous as anything and you can't let your hatred for communism cloud over that fact.

I dunno.... Sure lawlessness is dangerous in a more RANDOM way, but communism is more dangerous to people like me, because "my kind" would be targeted.

I hate ALL totalitarianism, and am a member of the Libertarian Party. Assuming a state of revolution (a state of lawlessness, if you will) brought on this communism, in that revolution I would have been fighting in an entirely different faction. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks, IIRC. I'd be on the Party sh*t list.

Whereas in an anarchy, if I go off to the country with family and keep my head down and mind my own business (but have my shotgun handy just in case), what interest are people going to have in me necessarily?

BTW, I hate TOTALITARIANISM, including totalitarian communism. Thuggery, but on a FAR more organized level. I can deal with one or two people better than a finely-honed secret-police-type ORGANIZATION. And odds are the latter would end up out to get me, it wouldn't matter if I shut up after it became clear my faction didn't win the revolution....

 

[phoenix_night]

@allan2,
try reading FredLC's post concerning communism.

 

[allan2]

FredLC--you're arguing semantics.

There are TWO definitions of communism, in actual USAGE: one is the utopian ideal which we've not ever done (on a national level anyway). The other is the definition of "communism" as in "Soviet communism" or "the Communist Party of China", referring to what is called "communism" in the "real world". Now we can argue all day about whether or not that second definition is accurate, or hammer on about how the Soviet dictatorship hijacked the term, but that's irrelevant to THIS thread: Narz clearly told us he meant the "real world" definition, just as he also meant the "real world" (not utopian) definition of "anarchy" in English usage.

I thought you understood that already though.

@phoenix night: There, that good enough for ya?