Anarchy or communism for the next 100 years?

Which one do you pick?

It's a lose-lose question, of course, but still interesting.

Anarchy is something that is easy to comprehend, though communism can vary; thus I'll just say: "Like the country you live in, only communist". Sort of.

Anarchy is only a temporary status. Social ties and hierarchy will always exist, because we can't help but create them.

Even a Tribal system is not anarchy. It'd last more or less for a while until the chaos slowly started to organize itself, and rebuilding would begin, after a fashion.

What kind of communist government are we talking about?

Actual anarchy? As a state of total existence, for 100 years? Almost anything would be better than that.

Tell me what you mean by anarchy and communism.

I can't see how a true communist system could last so long without turning into the more neagtive forms anarchy or a more restrictive form of government. It's too idealistic: everyone takes what they need from the mutual pot of resources to support themselves and the community. However, humans being humans, someone is bound to take a little (or a lot more) from the pot.

Hard to decide, especially since the two are very similar. I'm leaning towards communism though, since I think that comes with greater stability than anarchy.

edited 21st Feb '11 7:10:42 PM by apassingthought

As Generalissimus of the New Vague Communist Union, all citizens found to be engaging in subversion, sabotage, propaganda, conspiracies, or asking people pointlessly hypothetical questions, will be purged! PURGED FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.

So yeah, communism all the way.

I am ok with communism on the condition that I am given a chainsword, trenchcoat, and a cool peaked cap.

^ agreed with Barkey there.

• ♬ I am the man who arranges the blocks
• That continue to fall from up above.
• Come Muscovite! Let the workers unite!
• A collective regime of peace and love.
• I work so hard in arranging the blocks
• But the landlord and taxman bleed me dry
• But the workers will rise! We will not compromise
• For we know that the old regime must die.
• Long live Lenin, kill the tsar!
• We salute the sickle and star! ♬

edited 21st Feb '11 7:17:01 PM by Pentadragon

Yes, all non-commissioned officers would be shuffled in as commisars! It's practical!

Hard to decide, especially since the two are very similar.

In that the words both encompass several dozen differing systems each, sure.

No, not all, our entire job is making sure NCO's and lower enlisted alike do their job.

OR ELSE.

Anarchy. Possibly anarcho-communism, but let's not go overboard here.

But really, neither is a great idea to impose on a society. I mean, I like anarchism in principle but I'm not sure how well it would work in practice.

Communism... well, we've seen how that one works out. Not great.

Well the upside of anarchy is it would let me live out my dream of starting a mohawked wasteland raider warband.

Could find me a raider queen that looks like Viper from Doomsday and go about burning and looting.

I'm just gonna go fortify my base and lay low for a while.. We got the supplies and the protection.. And the expertise..

In that the words both encompass several dozen differing systems each, sure.

Hm, I was also thinking more in terms of results rather than what the system actually is (as well as my own views on the purpose of government). Also why I listed "ideally" when picking communism, as I don't see either working out in the long run (or at least outside of a small, disciplined society) because of Humans Are Flawed.

I'd have to lean towards communism.

After all, you wouldn't exactly want to have a society where some guy can bust into your home and rape someone.

Then again, communists could do that too... but it probably wouldn't be as likely.

I'll take communism if I get a cool brainwashing song and a snazzy outfit.

After all, you wouldn't exactly want to have a society where some guy can bust into your home and rape someone.

I don't see how this is supposed to be likelier without hierarchy than with.

^

Because with a hierarchy usually comes rules, and consequences, and police. It's a deterrent.

^^

Here you go! NOW GRAB YOUR GREATCOAT AND FOLLOW ME!

Well, more social standards.

Of course, that's dependent on what sort of communist society we're talking here, but still.

edited 21st Feb '11 8:14:33 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Let's see ... in Communism, the government can kill me.

In Anarchy, anyone can kill me.

I'll go with the former.

Actually, in communism, anarchism and capitalism, anyone can kill you.

Well, anyone with the means, anyway, which isn't just the government.

Anarchism doesn't mean that society itself will disappear, just the social hierarchy.

But isn't hierarchy in some way an essential part of a society above a certain (very low) level of complexity?

Actually communists do tend to have bitchin' anthems and snappy uniforms.

I'd go with communism if I'm promised an awesome anthem and sweet outfit; otherwise I'm going with forming a raider warband in anarchy.

^

It is, but in Anarchy, the hierarchy will come to exist at smaller levels for a time, the scale shrinks down to nothing, and begins to grow anew.

And when the scale is small, the power of the individual is at its greatest. Meaning that instead of the odds of the Government trying to kill me, it's just some asshole, and I can kill him first without any legal repercussions to myself.

I'll vote Anarchy. Though it won't last 100 years.