Anarchy or Communism

[amadeus]

I see we're back to the "the Soviet Union wasn't really communism!" nonsense.

On that logic, I could say the United States isn't really capitalist and that all capitalist socities (if they were possible under that same logic that communism never existed) would be utopian socieities where everyone works hard and is successful, etc. etc.

 

[phoenix_night]

"real-life communism"

this does not say actual historical communist states. as long as its realistic that should suffice, no need for it to actually have happened. for this reason, regardless of your definition of the ussr (which i am not arguing about), i believe you should possibly look a bit further than the soviet union and a little more at the actual ideas of communism.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by 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?

I understand that Allan, and I still keep my position. Communism in those systems is just a name, they were socialists. And in Fact, the Soviet Union didn't even do that, they very clearly defined themselves as socialists, not communists, as in "Union of the Socialist Sovietic Republics", their very name.

So, I still say that there is no real-life communism we can use to perform the comparison Narz suggested.

regards .

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by FredLC
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.

And a smart person (like me ) knows what to do, in general, to exist in peace under anarchy--generally don't go around pissing people off would be a good one to start with. I think rmsharpe had it right though, and I expounded on it: in a city, dictatorship (we'll drop using the term "communism" if you'd like, to avoid the above confusion in semantics ) would be no doubt safer than lawlessness, to a neutral average Joe who keeps his head down. However, in a remote rural area, that average Joe wouldn't have too much to worry about under either, I guess. But that average Joe won't be slaving in some collective farming scheme either (remember, we're talking Soviet-style communism). Crime just doesn't happen much in rural areas, and the difference between rural and urban crime rates certainly isn't Barney Fife patrolling the streets (being from Brazil, you may not "get" this reference, but rural police aren't exactly the cream of the crop professionally--they don't have to be).

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.

But is that how people ARE generally? If there were no laws, would average Joes be going insane and doing things like that? I know you're a lawyer, but don't flatter yourself TOO much . Would YOU be doing the behavoirs you describe above?

Crime would increase, certainly, but most of the people who do the types of things you described in that paragraph, do them now, too. They're called psychos.

Other crime generally has motives, like material gain (and I'm not rich, not likely to be either, fine with me), or anger over some vendetta (and I don't tend to invite those either).

Look, NEITHER state is ideal--that's what makes Narz' question so interesting. But you made the comment "I don't call it living" when describing existance under a dictatorship. My sentiments exactly. I think existing in lawlessness, following the survival tips I described above, can be more like "living" than living under totalitarianism. At least it's a dynamic state rather than a static one, maybe that helps....

 

[muppet]

Is it not at least a little strange?

Cuba claims to be a republic.
Iraq claims to be a republic.
Are these elected republics or dictatorships?

Why is it not possible that the former Soviet Union was merely claiming the be communist/socialist?

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I see we're back to the "the Soviet Union wasn't really communism!" nonsense.

On that logic, I could say the United States isn't really capitalist and that all capitalist socities (if they were possible under that same logic that communism never existed) would be utopian socieities where everyone works hard and is successful, etc. etc.

Sharpe, have you actually studied the disciplines before you formed your opinion?

Capitalism in USA or in anywhere else has differences only in implementation. But all nations defined as capitalists follow the same guidelines - personal private property, seek for profit, etc...

Between socialism and communism there are ideological differences, like one requiring a strong government, while the other basing itself in an almost non-existing government.

Unlike the capitalist variations we see in the world, communism and socialism are different in their very essence, not only in the degree of success it achieved.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by phoenix_night
"real-life communism"

this does not say actual historical communist states. as long as its realistic that should suffice, no need for it to actually have happened. for this reason, regardless of your definition of the ussr (which i am not arguing about), i believe you should possibly look a bit further than the soviet union and a little more at the actual ideas of communism.

One more time: Narz DID NOT intend this to be a debate about "ideal communism versus 'real world' communism"--so quit hijacking the thread!

Narz defined the parameters of the question he asked for the poll. If you don't like the parameters, start another poll that compares IDEAL communism to anarchy.

*I* am responding to the question asked in THIS thread, nothing more. Is that okay with you?



P.S. For purposes of THIS poll, as explained by Narz (and now by me, how many more need to do it), we are using the definition of communism in the USAGE of the phrase "Soviet communism" or "the Communist Party of China". You can argue that this definition is inaccurate ALL YOU WANT yet the fact is, in ENGLISH USAGE, it is USED WIDELY and therefore is a part of the language.

Whether it should be or not, is for ANOTHER thread (wait, we already did umpteen of them).

THIS thread is asking, essentially, would you prefer "communism meaning the Soviet definition" or "anarchy meaning the 'lawlessness' definition". Ask HIM if you don't believe me.

 

[phoenix_night]

@allan2,
ffs are you just not reading or what?!

it does not say actual historical examples of communist states. not once does the question refer to an actual communis or anarchic state. the term 'real-life' simply seperates an idealist's views of both communism and anarchy from realistic ideas.

it simply says a communist state - it does not say ussr. it does not say an actual communist state of any sort - simply one within the realms of possibility. to assume every communist state will turn out as another ussr is ridiclous and you have to look beyond that and realise communism doesn't translate to 'soviet union'.

 

[allan2]

This is what Narz said [emphasis mine]:

Originally posted by Narz
Some choice, huh?

But seriously, which would you rather live under?

For clarity's sake, I mean real-life communism and anarchy (not some idealized perfect system).

Anyone who reads my posts knows which I would choose but I'm gonna keep quiet and hope for an objective poll. I am curious to hear everyone's responses. This is gonna be fun

- Narz

Examples that have existed in MY "real life" have generally been of the Soviet model.

I don't GIVE A DAMN if the Soviets shouldn't have called themselves "communists"--they DID, and hence coined a second definition of the term, which Narz asks us to use when answering his question. Whether they should have or not is irrelevant to this thread. How hard is that to understand?

I will not explain it again. I have enough already.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by allan2
But is that how people ARE generally? If there were no laws, would average Joes be going insane and doing things like that? I know you're a lawyer, but don't flatter yourself TOO much . Would YOU be doing the behavoirs you describe above?

Crime would increase, certainly, but most of the people who do the types of things you described in that paragraph, do them now, too. They're called psychos.

Other crime generally has motives, like material gain (and I'm not rich, not likely to be either, fine with me), or anger over some vendetta (and I don't tend to invite those either).

Look, NEITHER state is ideal--that's what makes Narz' question so interesting. But you made the comment "I don't call it living" when describing existance under a dictatorship. My sentiments exactly. I think existing in lawlessness, following the survival tips I described above, can be more like "living" than living under totalitarianism. At least it's a dynamic state rather than a static one, maybe that helps....

Sure, neither is Ideal. And capitalism isn't ideal too. In fact, nothing that exists is, and that is why they are called ideals. Otherwise, they'd be called "reality".

Nonetheless, and avoiding the other points, where I think we have already reached common ground, please notice that psychos DO exist. they do terrible things and kill people horrendously even with law and order existing.

Also, my examples were too extreme, but you can tone down a little and still see the dangers. Look at the statistics, and see how many people are willing to kill others for things as simple as a traffic discussion.

You don't need that the entire population turns into freaks to have a killing spree. If one percent of population does it some serious trouble can arise already. And please notice that i'm limiting to the looney crazy wacko guys; I'm not even entering in the realm of regular criminality or passional crimes.

Anyway, if the solution to validade anarchy is isolacionism - that translates as the negation of human necessity to live in groups - than it also can work in that "dictatorial communism" (what is, in fact, a contradiction of terms). certainly, people that lived in the far away countryside both in Russia and in china didn't feel the heavy hand of the marxists nearly as intensely as the population os Moscow or Pequim.

Regards .

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by allan2
Examples that have existed in MY "real life" have generally been of the Soviet model.

I don't GIVE A DAMN if the Soviets shouldn't have called themselves "communists"--they DID, and hence coined a second definition of the term, which Narz asks us to use when answering his question. Whether they should have or not is irrelevant to this thread. How hard is that to understand?

I will not explain it again. I have enough already.

that's my whole point! he didn't say once that have existed in yours or anyone else's life!!! you underlined 'not some idealized perfect system' - which again, is exactly my point, 'real-life' as in not some make believe impossible utopian society; not as in an actual communist state that has existed.

'I don't GIVE A DAMN if the Soviets shouldn't have called themselves "communists"--they DID'. this has nothing to with it. the point is this thread does not concern actual states which have/do exist(ed) - that's not the point.

to expect every single communist state to be a replica of the ussr is nonsence but that's exactly the way your thinking and how you are answering this thread.

it says 'rel-life', not an actual historical state. something believable, realistic, not necessarily something out of a history book.

not every communist state will be a replica of the ussr!

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by allan2
This is what Narz said [emphasis mine]:



Examples that have existed in MY "real life" have generally been of the Soviet model.

I don't GIVE A DAMN if the Soviets shouldn't have called themselves "communists"--they DID, and hence coined a second definition of the term, which Narz asks us to use when answering his question. Whether they should have or not is irrelevant to this thread. How hard is that to understand?

I will not explain it again. I have enough already.

Hey, Allan. Saddam calls himself "president". Why don't you damn democracy as well?

Regards .

 

[kmad]

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.

"Those who would prefer security over freedom, deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin


edit: typo

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by kmad
"Those who would prefer security over freedom, deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin

Nice quote to encourage a righteous war such as independence.

Anyway, the danger in this so-called "anarchy" is useless, and unable to achieve greater goals. So, choosing safety is smart and pragmatic.

Also, and again thinking of the terms the original message intended to have, the so-called "communism" would give a far greater sense of comunity, what might be the step one in overthrowing it for a "full, wonderful and intrinsically democratic capitalism"...

Regards .

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by FredLC
Nonetheless, and avoiding the other points, where I think we have already reached common ground, please notice that psychos DO exist. they do terrible things and kill people horrendously even with law and order existing.

Which I pointed out, if you read closely. I would say, they exist REGARDLESS of law and order, and all law and order is usually good for in such cases, is to serve out justice AFTER the fact. I don't think I've ever heard of a serial killer stopped IN THE ACT by law enforcement--usually their work involves gathering clues around the bloody and mutilated body (if they can even find that). So in terms of safety, only IF they can solve the mystery, can they possibly prevent further deaths. Which isn't that often, really.

If suddenly there were no laws, would there be more psychos? Because by definition, psychos really aren't deterred by laws.

Also, my examples were too extreme, but you can tone down a little and still see the dangers. Look at the statistics, and see how many people are willing to kill others for things as simple as a traffic discussion.

Also happens under laws--and again, those who "snap" like that, are generally not caught until AFTER the police failed to make it safer for the victim, i.e. after the deed is done.

You don't need that the entire population turns into freaks to have a killing spree. If one percent of population does it some serious trouble can arise already. And please notice that i'm limiting to the looney crazy wacko guys; I'm not even entering in the realm of regular criminality or passional crimes.

Note this: most law enforcement is REACTIONARY. Doesn't do the dead guy with the chalk line around him any good.

But justice NEEDS to be served, which is why laws are good--and why lawlessness is not something good.

"dictatorial communism" (what is, in fact, a contradiction of terms).

You just keep having to make that point, don't you ? It's important to you that I understand this. I DO understand what you are saying--but it doesn't matter, in this thread.

certainly, people that lived in the far away countryside both in Russia and in china didn't feel the heavy hand of the marxists nearly as intensely as the population os Moscow or Pequim.

Regards .

Actually, in China, IIRC, the interior countryside is collectivized and still run by more old-school Maoists in general. They don't enjoy the "increasing freedoms" of Shanghai, Guangdong, or Hong Kong.

And ask a 90-year-old Ukrainian farmer (if you can find one) about "feeling the heavy hand of the marxists" in the 1930s. I would suspect that he felt that hand on his stomach, after the "Marxists" from Moscow forbade him from storing grain for himself until he exceeded their quotas (and this WAS enforced quite efficiently, if Solzhenytsyn's and others' accounts of the time are correct).

But I see what you're saying. Absent this kind of thing (which may or may not be carried out to Stalin's extremes), you can pretty much live as you did--but in anarchy if a "boss" comes around wanting your grain you can shoot him .

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by phoenix_night

it says 'rel-life', not an actual historical state. something believable, realistic, not necessarily something out of a history book.

I interpret "real life" as meaning "occurring in (my, yours, anyone's) REAL LIFE". That is how this phrase is generally used in the English language. It is generally used to contrast the EXPERIENTIAL to the CONCEPTUAL. For the sake of clarity, he wanted to make such a distinction. And a state that is "not historical", nor occuring right now, is one that has not been experienced in anyone's "real life". Get it now? If he would have meant merely "realistic", he would have used that term instead. They are different terms, although the difference is subtle and apparently lost on some people here.

Narz, can you explain to this man what you meant? We'll let HIM tell us. Will you be happy then?

Sheesh.

 

[Maj]

I'll take the one that will collapse more quickly.

The human social order is hierarchical. I cannot imagine a society without any form of leadership. Anarchy and communism work well only in small populations where its members know and trust eachother to a certain degree. Once you begin to encounter members beyond your own circle human competitive instinct sows paranoia, distrust and fear.

Xenophobia is probably the greatest barrier to human peace and prosperity.

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals ...

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by FredLC


Hey, Allan. Saddam calls himself "president". Why don't you damn democracy as well?

Regards .

Here we go again. By "communism", Narz was using a different definition than you are. Since both definitions are IN USE by English speakers, both are valid, like it or not--and that is why, for clarity, he specified the definition used by "real life" governments who have called themselves communists.

I am answering the question under the parameters that Narz tried to clarify. You are merely trying to muddy the waters at this point. How lawyerly of you ....

We're talking in circles around each other. Do you ENJOY this?

 

[CornMaster]

Anarchy is the lack of a government.
Communism is a centralized economic system.

It's like comparing Apples and Cement Blocks.

 

[kmad]

But given the choice of an apple or a cement block, which would you pick? That's the question here!