Communism or Anarchy?

A country can't be "run" on an "anarchical agenda". Anarchism is the absence of coercive political power.

You can't have an anarchist country any more than you can have an atheistic religion.

 

ANARCHY!!! Isn't as terrible as it's made out to be.

 

I voted anarchism, here's why.

The state and resources of the state aren't specified. If the state has a lot of resources, then Communism is preferable - under anarchism, all of those resources are stolen and pillaged, with the most ruthless of theives taking the most and thus asserting dominance over everyone else. I'm going to make the assumption the state is a Western one, and thus one with plenty of resources - Communism therefore should be preferable.

However, Communism is fatally flawed - it's a philosophy that revolves around all men being equal, but some holding power over others. The centralised authority of Communism has bought it down time and time again, as (for some reason) physcopathic leaders rise up to take the reigns and steer the country into authorative terror.

At least in anarchy we can voluntarily make Communist communes - under an authorative Communist regime, that's seen as 'counter revolutionary'. I make the assumption that the leadership will abuse the population, because this has happened historically - if Communism was implimented properly with tolerant, benign leaders it'd probably be alright, but still flawed on account of the fact that there are leaders there at all.

Thus, I would say anarchism, and hopefully from the anarchy a good libertarian socialist system would arise.

 

Anarcho-Communism.

But for the sake of the poll, I picked Anarchy.

 

Oh that's why I never get through. I view atheism as a religion.

Anarchy if the people don't suck, communism if the government doesn't suck.

So uh. Yeah. Comparative to both of those I'll take whatever the fuck it is we have now.

 

oh id love to live in an anarchist society, but its never going to happen, unless judgement day occurs and we survivors have to start all over.

i like the idea of no leaders, no rulers. its a naive idea though, bc in order to get rid of leaders, we ALL have to be leaders bc theres no room for followers.. (since there are no leaders)


you would have to go back several generations to find people that are even remotely capable of living as anarchists. as it stands now we're all extrmely dependent on the governent, we're selfish, weak, egomaniacal, materialistic....and we've been bred as such for good reason. people like us dont work well within anarchistic parameters.


so i'll reluctantly take what we have now, bc its really all there is anyway. (whatever it is)

 

Anarcho-Capitalism

 

My dad came to this country to escape communism, so clearly I'm voting anarchy (for the sake of the poll)

 

If I had to choose one, I would choose communism.

Not that I agree with it, but how many thousands of years of civilization will it take for anarchists to realize that humans create hierarchies, and you can't change human nature.

 

Easy choice. Anarchy.

How many thousands of years of civilization will it take for statists to realize that centralized governments are inherently corrupt, coercive and antithetical to liberty?

...or perhaps it is that they prefer corruption, coercion and slavery.

 

Anything that the government tries to do in general now is pretty much a complete failure. I can't imagine if they were given total control.

 

Define successful.

Is that what I said? No.
Is that what I implied? No.
Straw man harder.

 

Who is to say that slavery and corruption don't exist in any other type government? I'm quite sure both of those are very abundant in the current US government. Just because it's "illegal" doesn't stop it from happening.

The only difference with an anarchist society is that people will actually be responsible for their self, instead of thinking that you're entitled to something. The government shouldn't be protecting us, that's our job. Your security rests completely in your hands- why should it be any other way?

 

In this case, by your definition of success; yes, anarchy can be successful. Whether it would be is dependent on a number of variables.

What do you believe would stop a true anarchy from being successful, by your definition of success?

 

In an anarchist society, how would you stop people from joining together and forming governments?