19 Total Votes

No! Those damn reds can go to hell!

13 votes

Yes! They both work for the liberation of the masses!

6 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
SweetTea says2014-06-10T14:36:25.0135641-05:00
Anarchy IS worse! Communists usually uphold strong government. They don't want to destroy government. Communists have laws & follow them. Anarchists would prefer no law to restrict them in any way.
PreferNotToBeLabeled says2014-06-10T15:35:13.1107801-05:00
Anarchy and Socialism are very similar, but Communism has an extremely, strict central government at its core.
lifemeansevolutionisgood says2014-06-10T15:50:28.8794021-05:00
"Communism has an extremely, strict central government at its core." That is communism not how Marx imagined it. Communism under Marx's idea has never been implemented.
ArcTImes says2014-06-10T17:40:01.8259255-05:00
Lol that nickname
lifemeansevolutionisgood says2014-06-10T22:13:38.8752799-05:00
ArcTImes: Whose nickname?
SweetTea says2014-06-11T10:38:51.8360045-05:00
I personally think the Tea Party is more anarchy than patriotism. Ironically, I have heard many Republicans (under 30 & over) say the same thing!
debate_power says2014-06-19T17:12:54.7369590-05:00
Communism was originally intended to give way to anarchy, not the other way around. We all know that anarchy won't work, however, and that communism only works when the leaders aren't corrupt and such.
debate_power says2014-06-19T17:16:48.4019267-05:00
Either way you slice it, complete dedication to a government with no one complaining or complete voluntary loyalty to a social organization with no one complaining essentially means the same thing- a Utopian society. Anarchy won't work because it is the lower extreme; fascism won't work because it is the higher extreme. Extremes only work in a perfect world where everyone is in agreement; the only thing everyone seems to be in agreement on is that our world is not perfect.
Chimera says2014-06-19T19:16:56.5192628-05:00
@debatepower Communism is just a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It doesn't require some 'incorruptible' leader, because there aren't any. Before the First International, communism and anarchism were practically synonymous. The only difference was Marx's strategy of some transitional period of socialism that would (as Engels put it) wither away in this [communist] society. This strategy of course eventually evolving into Lenin's vanguard model. Also, saying that 'we all know anarchy won't work' is a bold statement to make without providing empirical evidence for such. And if communism only works with 'incorruptible' leaders, would you care to explain libraries? Or how about public education? Wikipedia? All of these use some strain of the maxim 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs' and/or embody ideas existent in an anti-private property society. Communism doesn't need leaders, the vanguard strategy (which is one of many strategies, but is the most popular amongst wannabe socialist dictators) needs them. Also, anarchism doesn't require complete consensus at all. That's the beauty of it. In anarchism, if there is a disagreement between parties, they can choose to not associate with one another. As opposed to our current society, where everybody has obligations and rules laid out to them by a corrupt state. If anything is 'Utopian' it's expecting society to progress when you keep electing people who are owned by the same corporations who bought out the incumbent.
debate_power says2014-06-19T19:21:16.1024614-05:00
Well, if the people make all of the decisions, doesn't that make everybody the leader? What do you say to that?
debate_power says2014-06-19T19:21:49.2145652-05:00
Doesn't anarchy leave a lot to chance?
debate_power says2014-06-19T19:22:05.4231730-05:00
Too much to chance, perhaps?
Chimera says2014-06-19T19:39:46.4120531-05:00
@debatepower The only 'decisions' made in an anarchist society are by those who wish to associate themselves in organizations making said decisions. Why should someone else be making the decisions for human beings, when we only know how to rule our own bodies? There are no 'leaders' in anarchy, only humanity. Mainly because leaders will only set themselves free by their own position of power, and make everyone who elected them their slaves. It is the oldest lie in human history that we need a 'leader'. Speaking of such, this is exactly what makes the state (not anarchy) the thing that gives too much up to chance. What is the chance that all of the people within a country will automatically concede their free will to one individual or group of individuals? They obviously won't, which is why war and revolution occur. The states own existence compromises itself, so to preserve order is grants allowance to petty 'legalization' or 'civil rights' movements, which only legitimizes it's destructive presence in society. At least, legitimizes it in the eyes of those who so recently wished to dismantle it.
vivia says2014-06-24T06:29:28.9633815-05:00
In an anarchy, I would be free to do whatever I wanted and you couldn't send a cop after me. Cops are govt. Anarchy is no govt at all. That means no courts, no licenses, no FDA or FFA. It means no roads, no public buildings, no public pools. Anarchy means no govt, be it local, state, or federal.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.