Would you rather live in complete anarchy or under an evil facist regime?

[Gamma Male]

I'm just curious to see what everyone would say. Would you rather live under an oppressive facist police state where all races, sexualities, and genders are treated equally badly, the media is entirely state run, sexual contact is illegal outside of government approved procreation and is punishable by death, and anyone who so much as questioned the government is immediately executed, or a near anarchist society where tribes, warlorda, and bandits were constantly wreaking havoc, murdering, and stealing and you had to find your own food and water and you could do anything you wanted. Snort bath salts off the ass of your 9 year old boyfriend in public while blasting Megadeth at 130 decibals and eating an endangered species of bird? Go right ahead, nobody cares!
Just for fun, lets say that anyone who chooses the anarchist society would automatically be given a basic set of survival skills, and anyone who chooses the facist state would be given a fairly comfy living with a medium sized house and office job, but would still be subject to the same oppressive laws and constant surveillance as everyone else.

So basically, would you rather live in 1984 or Fallout 3 without the radiation and mutants.

Both options sound absolutely terrifying, but I think I'd have to go with the anarchist one. In the facist state I'd live longer(as long as I behaved), but what's the point of living at all if that life is completely miserable and hopeless? At least in the anarchist society I would have a small chance of finding some friends and living an okay life.

[Walter]

Anarchy by far. I feel that if I were to live in a Facist regime I would be killed within the hour.

[EddietheZombie]

Anarchy. I'd rather not die or be ruled by a dictator. I'd rather be my own boss.

[ksdnfkfr]

Anarchy, bring it on.

[phuckphace]

I'd pick neither, they both sound horribly unpleasant in different ways. I'd like to live in a socially conservative society like we had in the 1940s and 50s, with a nationalist government and welfare state but without a huge military and foreign meddling.

tl;dr bring back Leave it to Beaver, add a heaping helping of socialism and a dash of Erwin Rommel, stir.

[Gamma Male]

I'd pick neither, they both sound horribly unpleasant in different ways. I'd like to live in a socially conservative society like we had in the 1940s and 50s, with a nationalist government and welfare state but without a huge military and foreign meddling.

tl;dr bring back Leave it to Beaver and add some socialism and a dash of Erwin Rommel, stir.

I'm not trying to start another debate, but ugheagghheahhgaaa!!!!! Social conservatism just sends chills down my spine! We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one bud. :)

But what if you HAD to choose between the 3 options?

[phuckphace]

Donald my friend, you say that but I bet you 50 bucks that if you got to live in a society like I described, it would start to grow on you after a while. maybe you'd even end up happier. the only reason an anarchist society sounds appealing to anyone is because our current broken one has alienated us from one another and fostered intense distrust, and it's difficult to imagine a time when things were different, and better.

so honestly I don't blame you for your misanthropy, just keep in mind that conservative doesn't always mean death camps. us reactionaries are actually pretty huggable and cuddly ;__;

[Gamma Male]

Donald my friend, you say that but I bet you 50 bucks that if you got to live in a society like I described, it would start to grow on you after a while. maybe you'd even end up happier. the only reason an anarchist society sounds appealing to anyone is because our current broken one has alienated us from one another and fostered intense distrust, and it's difficult to imagine a time when things were different, and better.

so honestly I don't blame you for your misanthropy, just keep in mind that conservative doesn't always mean death camps. us reactionaries are actually pretty huggable and cuddly ;__;

Don't try to tempt me with your foul conservityanessness, you cuddly reactionary you! :P

Kidding. To be honest, I couldn't really care less about economics. I just don't trust the government, large corporations, or any politicians. And I have good reason not you.
Iran Contra
NSA spying
Guantanamo Bay
The fact that Monsanto is even allowed to exist in America after all the awful shit they've been caught doing in South America.
The disgusting animal testing being done on chimpanzees by the US military.
The dozens, possibly even hundreds of innocent people who've been murdered by drone strikes
The list goes on and on. Why trust the government with even more power if they can do all this with what they have now?

[Stronk Serb]

Both are terrible, but I chose Fascism. Life in a police state isn't bad if you behave and find a source of happines. If I am raised there, everything would seem normal. I would rather live in order then anarchy. Socialism while conserving our traditions and moral values is the way to go. Passing down from a mildly authoritarian Socialist Yugoslavia to Backwards Economically Destrotyed Serbia was not that bad. We get to vote which uneducated son of a bitch is going to rob us every 4 years. Morally we got screwed. We have thousands of whores singing three lines on repeat for 5 minutes, we have 'men' who run away from problems and beat on the weak. Today I had to defend my friend from one asshole. He wanted to break his neck.

[ninja789]

anarchy but I wouldn't last long

[ImAurora]

Anarchy, easy. I want to live in Fallout.

[phuckphace]

Why trust the government with even more power if they can do all this with what they have now?

"if I'm gonna get randomly murdered I really hope it's at the hands of a private individual like a roving bandit lord and not a government agent because that would be 2oppressive4me." stellar logic there m80-m8

naturally there is always going to be some corruption in spite of any laws to the contrary, that's human nature and to be expected. but there's a huge difference between a scenario where people are held accountable for their actions by society and one where there is no accountability whatsoever.

[Gamma Male]

"if I'm gonna get randomly murdered I really hope it's at the hands of a private individual like a roving bandit lord and not a government agent because that would be 2oppressive4me." stellar logic there m80-m8

naturally there is always going to be some corruption in spite of any laws to the contrary, that's human nature and to be expected. but there's a huge difference between a scenario where people are held accountable for their actions by society and one where there is no accountability whatsoever.

You know, I never said I was an anarchist. I mean damn, you make it out like I don't think the government has the right to send people to prison for murder. I just don't think most of the actions social conservatives think should be illegal are any of the governments business. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in an ideal right wing socially conservative society, the following things would be illegal/ not allowed.
Pornography
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Recreational marijuana use
Flag Burning

Now, why should any of those things be illegal?

[tovaris]

whats wong with anarchy? You seem to have a bit ofset idea of such a world

[PinkFloyd]

Well living in a situation like those persecuted during WWII is definite a no as is loving in North Korea. I decided on anarchy because while things could be really shitty, there's still the chance that it could go okay.

[Body odah Man]

Gamma-Fascism isn't half of the things you just said.
Still-I voted Option 3.

[Willy_Nilly]

I'd pick the third option seeing I wouldn't very long in either option.

[britishboy]

Fascist, the lesser of three evils. Number three is ruled out because nothing is worse than death.

Fascism is better than anarchists because you have some hope and should you abide by the laws live a relatively normal life. Anarchism on the other hand would be chaos, mass murders, powerful mafia organisations taking the place of government. Everyone would be stolen off of and probably killed because the criminal will face no justice other than inefficient vigilantes. Long story short white supremacists, homophobes and other undesirable groups will gain power and their activities will will get worse and more common. Under fascism none of that would happen.

[Remora]

Fascism.
I'm stupid, people are stupid, i need someone to tell me what to do because i do them incorrectly otherwise xD

[Vlerchan]

Long story short white supremacists, homophobes and other undesirable groups will gain power and their activities will will get worse and more common. Under fascism none of that would happen.
Lol.

I'd chose fascism because I think I could behave myself long-enough to reach a point high-enough in society that I could involve myself in whatever illicit activity I choose. Because that's how it works in these type of societies.

[Stronk Serb]

Fascist, the lesser of three evils. Number three is ruled out because nothing is worse than death.

Fascism is better than anarchists because you have some hope and should you abide by the laws live a relatively normal life. Anarchism on the other hand would be chaos, mass murders, powerful mafia organisations taking the place of government. Everyone would be stolen off of and probably killed because the criminal will face no justice other than inefficient vigilantes. Long story short white supremacists, homophobes and other undesirable groups will gain power and their activities will will get worse and more common. Under fascism none of that would happen.

My thoughts exactly. Some ideas of fascism don't seem that bad. Yeah, you have major corporations etc. but their influence is limited by the state which means that they don't get to work the people to death and similar stuff, but the common worker doesn't get overpaid for doing nothing or for doing little work. It is essentially all classes working for the good of all. Now the usual totalitarian oppressive government doesn't sound nice, but you can get around that. Follow the law and directives of the state.

[abc983055235235231a]

Anarchism doesn't entail any of those things....

[Vlerchan]

... in theory.

Though, I think anybody who is in anyway knowledgeable about either ideology, anarchism or fascism, is going to realise straight-off that both proposed societies are some rather glaring misrepresentations of the ideologies in question. If we were talking about theoretical left-anarchism then anarchism would be the obvious choice - I've argued here in the past that such a society is feasible. I made my choice here, however, on the basis of the outlined societies.

[britishboy]

Anarchism doesn't entail any of those things....
Yes it does... Oh sorry are you under the belief that if the law enforcement get disbanded and the government destroyed that everything will be rosy? All criminals will stop committing crimes? Order in society won't be destroyed? Powerful mafias won't take the place of government? I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN THE MOST PURE FAR RIGHT OR FAR LEFT STATE THAN IN ANARCHISM Why? Because both communists and nazis understand the basic need of law and order!
My thoughts exactly. Some ideas of fascism don't seem that bad. Yeah, you have major corporations etc. but their influence is limited by the state which means that they don't get to work the people to death and similar stuff, but the common worker doesn't get overpaid for doing nothing or for doing little work. It is essentially all classes working for the good of all. Now the usual totalitarian oppressive government doesn't sound nice, but you can get around that. Follow the law and directives of the state.
Never thought I would be agreeing with you:P

[Capto]

If I were to live in the fascist state, no doubt would I be indoctrinated with love of the state, and have no thoughts of discontent for the glorious nation in which I live. Thus, there would be no discomfort in me giving up what is necessary for the survival of the fascist state and its dear leaders.

[Southside]

Even though I voted "Rather Die", Probably fascism

In Anarchy, basically the only person who you have is your family/yourself to help you in a time of need

[abc983055235235231a]

Yes it does... Oh sorry are you under the belief that if the law enforcement get disbanded and the government destroyed that everything will be rosy? All criminals will stop committing crimes? Order in society won't be destroyed? Powerful mafias won't take the place of government? I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN THE MOST PURE FAR RIGHT OR FAR LEFT STATE THAN IN ANARCHISM Why? Because both communists and nazis understand the basic need of law and order!



You are just spouting political rhetoric. (Also, it's clear that you don't know what communism is, in addition to not knowing what anarchism is).

In a sentence, a society without government is not a society without rules. I'm sure that you think it is, but that just means that you haven't thought very hard about it.

[phuckphace]

daily reminder

http://i.imgur.com/c6tZXPB.jpg

[Miserabilia]

Really interesting.
I'd choose anarchy,
because even though you could get killed or robbed at any moment,
you can make something of yourself.
(CAN, not will, it's anarchy so yea)

I'd rather live for myself in danger and chaos than be a sheep forced to do what other decide.

[Harry Smith]

. Long story short white supremacists, homophobes and other undesirable groups will gain power and their activities will will get worse and more common. Under fascism none of that would happen.

Uhm have you heard of this guy-the orinigal white supremacist/homophobe who also ruled a very Fascist regime

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/H/Adolf-Hitler-9340144-2-402.jpg

powerful mafia organisations taking the place of government

That happened in the 1960's, do you know your History? This guy killed a US president, had the FBI under his thumb and the CIA in his cheque book.

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/G/Sam-Giancana-9542088-1-402.jpg

Because both communists and nazis understand the basic need of law and order!

So when the Berlin wall was pulled down by a mob was that order?
When the Jews were gassed in death camps was that law?
When german women were raped by Russian soldiers was that order?
When authors and writes were sent to gulags was that law?

You have a very funny perception of law and order

[Kahn]

I would take death over submitting myself to another man.

I would take death over an aimless and survivalist existence as well.

I'll take Self Government, and rational existence.

[britishboy]

In a sentence, a society without government is not a society without rules. I'm sure that you think it is, but that just means that you haven't thought very hard about it.

Who would make these 'rules'? Who would enforce them? Are you an anarchist or a communist?

[Stronk Serb]

So when the Berlin wall was pulled down by a mob was that order?
When the Jews were gassed in death camps was that law?
When german women were raped by Russian soldiers was that order?
When authors and writes were sent to gulags was that law?

You have a very funny perception of law and order

Hitler was a national-socialist. Fascism is about the state, national-socialism is about the nation and race.

Yes, as horrendous as it seemed, gassing Jews was done according to the laws of the German Reich. Soviet soldiers raped women on foreign soil. It's like a Soviet citizen commiting a crime in the USA. Does that means the USSR is in disorder? No. By the laws and directives of Stalin, the intellect of the USSR went to the gulags, which was not against the Soviet law because Stalin changed it as he saw fit. For future reference, choose Socialist Yugoslavia. It was one of the closest things to communism.

[Harry Smith]

Hitler was a national-socialist. Fascism is about the state, national-socialism is about the nation and race.

Yes, as horrendous as it seemed, gassing Jews was done according to the laws of the German Reich. Soviet soldiers raped women on foreign soil. It's like a Soviet citizen commiting a crime in the USA. Does that means the USSR is in disorder? No. By the laws and directives of Stalin, the intellect of the USSR went to the gulags, which was not against the Soviet law because Stalin changed it as he saw fit. For future reference, choose Socialist Yugoslavia. It was one of the closest things to communism.

Hitlers ideas where based on Fascism-he modeled them on Mussolini. The only difference was that NS blamed capitalism and the Jews.

Not really-the Soviet soldiers were still bound under the Hague convention.

[Vlerchan]

Uhm have you heard of [Hitler]-the orinigal white supremacist/homophobe who also ruled a very Fascist regime.

This isn't exactly true. Whilst the Nazi's persecuted homosexuals it was more-so for votes than any deep-seeded resentment of them. Ernst Rohm -remember him? - was certainly gay and there's plenty of evidence supporting the claim that Hitler may have in fact been gay himself.

Who would make these 'rules'? Who would enforce them?[1] Are you an anarchist or a communist?[2]

[1]The last time I checked nobody had made a rule stating the men couldn't wear skirts but it's very rare - if ever - that you see it happening. It's societal-pressure that keeps men in check here. I wrote this on a another board to another user who made such claims as you're making now, but since I'm not bothered to re-word it for VTs benefit I'm just going to paste:

In today's world we abide to dozens upon dozens of rules - social-codes - with being forced or coerced into it; without the need of an enforcer. For example: there's not rules against men wearing dresses but you'll find that as a result of the social-codes that today's world has developed you won't find many men in dresses anyway. This is obviously quite a trivial example but I presume you get my point: societal-pressure shouldn't be disregarded as a means of enforcement of set standards in a community - the science of sociology is built around this.

[...]

Though, to say that you'd go unpunished for malicious/violent acts against other individuals would be a lie. I presume in a community people would eventually group together and form a Front against your actions - the same way neighborhood watch groups emerge in American neighborhoods for their own collective protection. They would act against you, I'm certain, if they felt threatened.

There are some left-anarchists who feel that within each community it si only reasonable that some means of combatting crime be implemented - i.e., courts and small police-service. These would be reformed, of course, to act in the manner of any other anarchist institution, that is: democratic, non-hierarchal, and wholly-accountable to their respectable communities.

[2]: Communists are, by definition, in support of anarchy.

All criminals will stop committing crimes?
Anarchists have never claimed this. What left-anarchists do claim however is that under anarchy many of the social-ills that cause crime would be eliminated: poverty, inequality, discrimination, social-alienations, etc.

[britishboy]

The last time I checked nobody had made a rule stating the men couldn't wear skirts but it's very rare - if ever - that you see it happening.

So why can't you put social pressure on them, with a government? Also in communist all money and power belongs to the state, if their is any money at all! That is enormous power their leaders hold so no I doubt they support a state where everyone can do as they want.

[Harry Smith]

This isn't exactly true. Whilst the Nazi's persecuted homosexuals it was more-so for votes than any deep-seeded resentment of them. Ernst Rohm -remember him? - was certainly gay and there's plenty of evidence supporting the claim that Hitler may have in fact been gay himself.


I've heard of Rohm-the night he was shot he was in bed with a 20 year old man. I'd turn my nose up at the idea of Hitler being gay- It seems like every historical figure has 'gay' tendencies. It really was one of the ironies of the third Reich. But I'd still say that the Nazis went pretty far against homosexuality even for the 1930's-I'd describe sending gays to death camps as pretty far

[britishboy]

Anarchism doesn't entail any of those things....

Are you an anarchist? If you are watch The Purge.

[Vlerchan]

So why can't you put social pressure on them, with a government?
I don't think you even understand what you're saying here.

Let's start from the beginning: what do you believe the definition of societal-pressures is? If we're thinking along the same lines here then there would be no reason why you'd be suggesting the above.

But I'd still say that the Nazis went pretty far against homosexuality even for the 1930's-I'd describe sending gays to death camps as pretty far
Oh, yeah: there's no doubt of this.

I'm still just disinclined to label Hitler homophobic as a result of what I've outlined above.

[britishboy]

I don't think you even understand what you're saying here.

Let's start from the beginning: what do you believe the definition of societal-pressures is? If we're thinking along the same lines here then there would be no reason why you'd be suggesting the above.


It is peer pressure on somebody or a group to conform to change their dress (your example).

[Vlerchan]

It is peer pressure on somebody or a group to conform to change their dress (your example).
Close enough. The point is that it is non-violent.

It's non-compatible with the government because a non-violent means of enforcement is outside the governments-realm. The government imposes its codes (or laws) through the threat and/or use of violence. For the government to take a part in structuring society such necessitates that threat and/or use of violence - there's no other means of enforcement at the governments disposal otherwise. This isn't to say that (most) anarchists are entirely opposed to violence: the initiation of violence is what anarchists are opposed to - it's why in a anarchist society I'd support the use of neibourhood-like watch units - and it's the initiation of violence that the government represents.

There's also no reason why the government need exist to support this function when society-at-large will be actively maintaining it anyway. It would seem redundant to me - and a sheer waste of recourses.

[Typhlosion]

To those saying evil fascism...

★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★

[phuckphace]

To those saying evil fascism...

★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★ NORTH KOREA ★

North Korea is Marxist (anti-reactionary and anti-fascism). your fax, get them straight

[Capto]

North Korea is Marxist (anti-reactionary and anti-fascism). your fax, get them straight

They're devolved so far from that point that Kimilsungism actually exists.

[phuckphace]

my point is that people misuse the term fascism and basically equate it with "evil dictators lul". try visiting NK and calling them fascist, you'd quickly feel a boot on your neck and wake up in a prison camp for counterrevolutionary/reactionary agitators.

[Typhlosion]

North Korea is Marxist (anti-reactionary and anti-fascism). your fax, get them straight
I'm lazy to get a textbook on it, so...

Merriam Webster

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocratic) government headed by a dictatorial (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorial) leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Check!

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control Check!

Dictionary.com

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce), etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. No racism, but check!

any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism North Korea is left. No check. Almost.

any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc Once more, left-wing.

Encyclopaedia Britannica

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism (http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405644/nationalism), contempt for electoral democracy (http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157129/democracy) and political and cultural liberalism (http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism), a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation Check once more!

I don't see how North Korea is anti-fascist at all.

[radsniper]

anarchy i think is the best answer

[Miserabilia]

my point is that people misuse the term fascism and basically equate it with "evil dictators lul". try visiting NK and calling them fascist, you'd quickly feel a boot on your neck and wake up in a prison camp for counterrevolutionary/reactionary agitators.

Doesn't that just like... proove "evil dictators lul"?
xD

[Kyle9000]

I'd pick Anarchy just because in the Fascist regime I would get bored and break as many rules as possible and I don't really have any qualms about killing or dying, so I could live in the "Fallout" world.


............. but super mutants are radiation are kinda fun too.

[phuckphace]

Doesn't that just like... proove "evil dictators lul"?
xD

read my post. I said evil dictators don't necessarily have anything to do with fascism. in other words, fascists can be dictators (e.g. Hitler, Francisco Franco) but not all dictators are fascists (Stalin, Kim Jung-il). that word gets misused in the same way a lot of people call Obama a "socialist" as a derogatory term even though Obama is actually a neoliberal and despised by real socialists.

[Miserabilia]

read my post. I said evil dictators don't necessarily have anything to do with fascism. in other words, fascists can be dictators (e.g. Hitler, Francisco Franco) but not all dictators are fascists (Stalin, Kim Jung-il). that word gets misused in the same way a lot of people call Obama a "socialist" as a derogatory term even though Obama is actually a neoliberal and despised by real socialists.

ooh ok I see.

[Capto]

North Korea was founded upon the principles of 'fascism is evil and must die'.

Correlation=/= Causation

[Miserabilia]

North Korea was founded upon the principles of 'fascism is evil and must die'.

Correlation=/= Causation

What?

[Capto]

What?

One of the most clear statements in this thread surely does not need clarification.

[Ethe14]

Anarchy, that way I can make my own regime and get whatever country/city under my control. Restore it, make it prosperous and reap the benefits.

[Miserabilia]

One of the most clear statements in this thread surely does not need clarification.

It does for me, I honestly don't get it.
Please explain what you mean with it

[Capto]

It does for me, I honestly don't get it.
Please explain what you mean with it

North Korea was founded as an inherently anti-fascist state. All the Kims constantly spout(ed) anti-fascist, anti-capitalist rhetoric. How hard is it to understand?

[Miserabilia]

North Korea was founded as an inherently anti-fascist state. All the Kims constantly spout(ed) anti-fascist, anti-capitalist rhetoric. How hard is it to understand?

What does it have to do with correlations and causations, I'm lost here sorry

[Vlerchan]

What does it have to do with correlations and causations, I'm lost here sorry
Whilst The North Korean regime might hold all the characteristics of a Fascist regime (ultra-nationalism, totalitarianism; militarism; etc.) such does not necessarily make the North Korean regime a Fascist regime.

[Miserabilia]

Whilst The North Korean regime might hold all the characteristics of a Fascist regime (ultra-nationalism, totalitarianism; militarism; etc.) such does not necessarily make the North Korean regime a Fascist regime.

oooh ok in that way ok lol sorry I'm retarded

[Karkat]

Suicide is never the answer, unless you're asking this question.

I would absolutely just off myself if it came between these two.

[xxdrakeTxx]

im already violent and hate all forms of goverment and major religions . i think id be more at home in a world were mother nature takes over rather than a idiot in a suit . and i can hardly handle the goverment right know. cant even imagine living under strict law no thanks

[Miserabilia]

im already violent and hate all forms of goverment and major religions . i think id be more at home in a world were mother nature takes over rather than a idiot in a suit . and i can hardly handle the goverment right know. cant even imagine living under strict law no thanks

i think id be more at home in a world were mother nature takes over rather than a idiot in a suit .

I really really aggree with that. Can I put that in my signature? :D

[AbigailBM98]

both are rather unpleasant but at least with anarchy you don't have to pay taxes

[xxdrakeTxx]

I really really aggree with that. Can I put that in my signature? :D

sure

[Human]

Anarchy sounds cool but in reality it would probably suck :P

Neither:P

[StrangerDanger]

So North Korea or fallout (without the mutants and radiation)

[phuckphace]

both are rather unpleasant but at least with anarchy you don't have to pay taxes

yes because taxes are the worst thing imaginable :rolleyes:

[Stronk Serb]

yes because taxes are the worst thing imaginable :rolleyes:

Especially if they finance your protection, education, healthcare and betterment of the economy.

[Miserabilia]

Especially if they finance your protection, education, healthcare and betterment of the economy.

Yea don't you just hate it when the money you want to spend on excessive food intake gets wasted on dumb stuff like hospitals and schools?

[Lonely teen]

Anarchy because I can make the rules.

[Stronk Serb]

Yea don't you just hate it when the money you want to spend on excessive food intake gets wasted on dumb stuff like hospitals and schools?

Or the law enforcement. Or bureaucracy. Or the fire brigade.

[sqishy]

Interesting how anarchy is automatically seen as a very bad system. Chaotic yes, but with little time to see how it would exist in a stable way, all our opinions are speculation and chaos is not bad, it's just an absence of rules and absolutes, and I like that.

So anarchy I go for. For the curiosity.

[mrmee]

I chose anarchy, because, it would be easier. I am terrible at caring about what my superiors wishes are. My way of thinking, you help me, ill help you. You steal from me, ill cut your hand off. Escalation is a beautiful thing.

[Miserabilia]

Interesting how anarchy is automatically seen as a very bad system. Chaotic yes, but with little time to see how it would exist in a stable way, all our opinions are speculation and chaos is not bad, it's just an absence of rules and absolutes, and I like that.

So anarchy I go for. For the curiosity.

My thoughts exactly

[phuckphace]

Interesting how anarchy is automatically seen as a very bad system. Chaotic yes, but with little time to see how it would exist in a stable way, all our opinions are speculation and chaos is not bad, it's just an absence of rules and absolutes, and I like that.

I like how literally 100% of posts ITT calling for full blown anarchy were posted by upper middle class teens living with their parents in comfortable policed suburbs in first world nations. the above post is a good example of the mindset that is required to find anarchy even remotely appealing. predictably, it's born out of a childish desire for rebellion against rules and absolutes combined with ignorance of how societies work and why rules exist.

humans form ordered societies to fend off chaos, because chaos is always bad. that's stupefyingly obvious if you're paying attention. Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union is an excellent example of the horrifying effects that social chaos causes. prior to the collapse of the USSR, its people had lived in relatively stable social conditions - yes the USSR was a police state and although they may not have had "FREEDUM" *cue Micky D's jingle* the order that the state enforced allowed the people to enjoy a sense of security and comfort. after the USSR collapsed, and without the state to enforce that order, Russia was plunged into chaos and the results were suspiciously similar to what I have always claimed would happen in an anarchist society. widespread social dysfunction occurred - increased crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, destruction of the family, human trafficking, a huge child pornography industry, and on and on. abortion rates shot up to as high as three per woman in the 1990s. even today the negative effects are still being felt - Russia is a miserable and depressing place with alcoholism, suicide and drug abuse widespread. if you had been a Russian citizen alive during that collapse, it would have seemed almost like the end of the world. it's therefore not a surprise that a significant portion of Russians favor a return to Soviet Socialism, not necessarily because they are diehard fans of Marxism-Leninism specifically, but because they desire the familiar social order that their country once enjoyed, compared to the relatively chaotic and destabilizing effects of "freedom" and capitalism.

humans need shared morality and a social order to function as a society, as it's one of the things that separates us from other animals. without it, we slide back into our barbaric animal nature and literally eat one another alive.

[conker0118]

anarchy then you could do real life fallout

[Stronk Serb]

I like how literally 100% of posts ITT calling for full blown anarchy were posted by upper middle class teens living with their parents in comfortable policed suburbs in first world nations. the above post is a good example of the mindset that is required to find anarchy even remotely appealing. predictably, it's born out of a childish desire for rebellion against rules and absolutes combined with ignorance of how societies work and why rules exist.

humans form ordered societies to fend off chaos, because chaos is always bad. that's stupefyingly obvious if you're paying attention. Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union is an excellent example of the horrifying effects that social chaos causes. prior to the collapse of the USSR, its people had lived in relatively stable social conditions - yes the USSR was a police state and although they may not have had "FREEDUM" *cue Micky D's jingle* the order that the state enforced allowed the people to enjoy a sense of security and comfort. after the USSR collapsed, and without the state to enforce that order, Russia was plunged into chaos and the results were suspiciously similar to what I have always claimed would happen in an anarchist society. widespread social dysfunction occurred - increased crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, destruction of the family, human trafficking, a huge child pornography industry, and on and on. abortion rates shot up to as high as three per woman in the 1990s. even today the negative effects are still being felt - Russia is a miserable and depressing place with alcoholism, suicide and drug abuse widespread. if you had been a Russian citizen alive during that collapse, it would have seemed almost like the end of the world. it's therefore not a surprise that a significant portion of Russians favor a return to Soviet Socialism, not necessarily because they are diehard fans of Marxism-Leninism specifically, but because they desire the familiar social order that their country once enjoyed, compared to the relatively chaotic and destabilizing effects of "freedom" and capitalism.

humans need shared morality and a social order to function as a society, as it's one of the things that separates us from other animals. without it, we slide back into our barbaric animal nature and literally eat one another alive.

Not just the Soviet Union. Look at Socialist Yugoslavia. It was mildly authoritarian, you couldn't publicly oppose the regime, but very stable and prospering in all ways until 1992 when the war began. Now look at the former republics. Serbia- took 3rd place in the world for highest inflation, chaos in the nineties, people earning ten dollars a month, having to resort to illegal ways to make money, North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation bombings in 1999, de-throning of the Wannabe Führer Slobodan Milošević, setting up a banana government which worsens the already hard situation, shitty turbofolk music, extreme chaufinism... could go on. Everyone with a brain wants to revert to Yugoslavia from 1990.

[sqishy]

I like how literally 100% of posts ITT calling for full blown anarchy were posted by upper middle class teens living with their parents in comfortable policed suburbs in first world nations. the above post is a good example of the mindset that is required to find anarchy even remotely appealing. predictably, it's born out of a childish desire for rebellion against rules and absolutes combined with ignorance of how societies work and why rules exist.

humans form ordered societies to fend off chaos, because chaos is always bad. that's stupefyingly obvious if you're paying attention. Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union is an excellent example of the horrifying effects that social chaos causes. prior to the collapse of the USSR, its people had lived in relatively stable social conditions - yes the USSR was a police state and although they may not have had "FREEDUM" *cue Micky D's jingle* the order that the state enforced allowed the people to enjoy a sense of security and comfort. after the USSR collapsed, and without the state to enforce that order, Russia was plunged into chaos and the results were suspiciously similar to what I have always claimed would happen in an anarchist society. widespread social dysfunction occurred - increased crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, destruction of the family, human trafficking, a huge child pornography industry, and on and on. abortion rates shot up to as high as three per woman in the 1990s. even today the negative effects are still being felt - Russia is a miserable and depressing place with alcoholism, suicide and drug abuse widespread. if you had been a Russian citizen alive during that collapse, it would have seemed almost like the end of the world. it's therefore not a surprise that a significant portion of Russians favor a return to Soviet Socialism, not necessarily because they are diehard fans of Marxism-Leninism specifically, but because they desire the familiar social order that their country once enjoyed, compared to the relatively chaotic and destabilizing effects of "freedom" and capitalism.

humans need shared morality and a social order to function as a society, as it's one of the things that separates us from other animals. without it, we slide back into our barbaric animal nature and literally eat one another alive.

There's a difference between using rules to keep order in your world, and seeing the rules as absolute truths and being limited by them. We made up money, but many think money controls us, not the other way around. We should not let numbers tell us what to do all the time. We are blood and earth in matter, not theory and chalk. In a way we are the most barbaric species on Earth ever. We are creating a mass extinction. Don't say it's not happening. More rules, less freedom and chaos, less change, less of a point to be here. I am not going into why and how and all about my opinion and ideas etc etc, but let me remind you that the fall of the Soviet Union was a game changer for the better.

[phuckphace]

There's a difference between using rules to keep order in your world, and seeing the rules as absolute truths and being limited by them.

without the concept of absolutes, rules have no efficacy. laws and traditions are only able to maintain social order because they are seen as absolute - that's the entire point. without the concept of truth and absolutes, rules lose their meaning and purpose. once people no longer feel bound by obligations to those with whom they share society (UGH RULES) destabilization and chaos begin to occur.

We made up money, but many think money controls us, not the other way around. We should not let numbers tell us what to do all the time. We are blood and earth in matter, not theory and chalk. In a way we are the most barbaric species on Earth ever. We are creating a mass extinction. Don't say it's not happening. More rules, less freedom and chaos, less change, less of a point to be here.

not quite sure what you're on about here, but I should point out that 99% of species that have ever lived are now extinct. human civilization has only existed for an extremely small fraction of that time, hence our impact on nature has been absurdly minimal when all is said and done.

one thing I've noticed about anarchists is that they all seem to be perpetually angry misanthropes. "gee, I wonder what I can be angry about today, and in what way can it be attributed to UGH HUMANS?"

I am not going into why and how and all about my opinion and ideas etc etc, but let me remind you that the fall of the Soviet Union was a game changer for the better.

yes, aside from the near-total erosion of their society into disorder everything is hunky-dory

[ninja789]

I like how literally 100% of posts ITT calling for full blown anarchy were posted by upper middle class teens living with their parents in comfortable policed suburbs in first world nations. the above post is a good example of the mindset that is required to find anarchy even remotely appealing. predictably, it's born out of a childish desire for rebellion against rules and absolutes combined with ignorance of how societies work and why rules exist.

humans form ordered societies to fend off chaos, because chaos is always bad. that's stupefyingly obvious if you're paying attention. Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union is an excellent example of the horrifying effects that social chaos causes. prior to the collapse of the USSR, its people had lived in relatively stable social conditions - yes the USSR was a police state and although they may not have had "FREEDUM" *cue Micky D's jingle* the order that the state enforced allowed the people to enjoy a sense of security and comfort. after the USSR collapsed, and without the state to enforce that order, Russia was plunged into chaos and the results were suspiciously similar to what I have always claimed would happen in an anarchist society. widespread social dysfunction occurred - increased crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, destruction of the family, human trafficking, a huge child pornography industry, and on and on. abortion rates shot up to as high as three per woman in the 1990s. even today the negative effects are still being felt - Russia is a miserable and depressing place with alcoholism, suicide and drug abuse widespread. if you had been a Russian citizen alive during that collapse, it would have seemed almost like the end of the world. it's therefore not a surprise that a significant portion of Russians favor a return to Soviet Socialism, not necessarily because they are diehard fans of Marxism-Leninism specifically, but because they desire the familiar social order that their country once enjoyed, compared to the relatively chaotic and destabilizing effects of "freedom" and capitalism.

humans need shared morality and a social order to function as a society, as it's one of the things that separates us from other animals. without it, we slide back into our barbaric animal nature and literally eat one another alive.

I went for it but Im lower working class
you may want to knock that figure down to 95%

[Horatio Nelson]

Anarchy for sure, because who's to say you can't become the "top dog" and rule your own little kingdom.

[Vlerchan]

I swear I've been through this already in the thread.
predictably, it's born out of a childish desire for rebellion against rules and absolutes combined with ignorance of how societies work and why rules exist.
Let's start from the beginning here: anarchy isn't anti-rules but rather anti-rulers. It's not necessarily against government either but is rather against top-down forms of government and other inherently coercive bodies. It is entirely possible for an anarchic society to function in a highly-organised manner. If you've ever spoken to an anarchist you'd realise that they're all in favour of highly-organised societies and it's the organisation of the current society that they disagree with: direct democracy, decentralisation of power and voluntary association is what they strive for.

There has been anarchist communities in the past who have operated in a highly-organised manner.

humans form ordered societies to fend off chaos
And there's no reason why an ordered society couldn't be anarchic in principal.

Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union is an excellent example of the horrifying effects that social chaos causes.
See: anomie.

widespread social dysfunction occurred - increased crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, destruction of the family, human trafficking, a huge child pornography industry, and on and on.
This happened as a direct result of wide-scale impoverishment occurring alongside a number of other prevalent social ills. It came as a result of IMF- and US-backed 'shock therapy' shredding the economy. There was a government and consequently authority present the entire time the "crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, destruction of the family, human trafficking, a huge child pornography industry" was happening.

abortion rates shot up to as high as three per woman in the 1990s.
I think you mean three per live birth here.

http://darussophile.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/russia-abortion-statistics.jpg

even today the negative effects are still being felt - Russia is a miserable and depressing place with alcoholism, suicide and drug abuse widespread.
Yes. We are all aware that neo-liberalism is shit. This is a generally accepted fact on VT in specific and amongst the thinking-masses in general. I'm failing to see what that has to do with the point you're making, though.

if you had been a Russian citizen alive during that collapse, it would have seemed almost like the end of the world. it's therefore not a surprise that a significant portion of Russians favor a return to Soviet Socialism, not necessarily because they are diehard fans of Marxism-Leninism specifically, but because they desire the familiar social order that their country once enjoyed, compared to the relatively chaotic and destabilizing effects of "freedom" and capitalism.
You've muddied the waters here in attempting to unjustly blame a movement away from authoritarianism (which we'll ignore was happening under Gorbachev anyway - and further ignore that Russia is still quite authoritarian today) for the results of twenty years of neo-liberal economic policy. If the Russian people really wanted to live by their 'traditional values' then they would start living to those traditional values; if anything is stopping them it's not a lack of authoritarianism but rather the economic-inequity wrought on them by neo-liberalism.

humans need shared morality and a social order to function as a society
Totally possible in anarchy.

And the best thing is that if you find that you don;t share your morality with your commune then you're free to cross into a more like-minded one without people shooting at you for not being born there.

but let me remind you that the fall of the Soviet Union was a game changer for the better.
Whilst inevitable I certainly wouldn't say that it was a game-changer for the better.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[sqishy]

Whilst inevitable I certainly wouldn't say that it was a game-changer for the better.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Not by a stretch of seeing the crisis in Ukraine? Russia is not a good place at all, but it is not as bad as the Soviet Union was, the Unrion with more would-be supressed countries as part of it back then, than today.

[Stronk Serb]

Not by a stretch of seeing the crisis in Ukraine? Russia is not a good place at all, but it is not as bad as the Soviet Union was, the Unrion with more would-be supressed countries as part of it back then, than today.

Ukraine- got expanded by the USSR. Crimea was annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Kruschov. People enjoyed protection, healthcare, maximum education, jobs, a living wage. After the fall of the USSR, the only power that's left is the USA, and now they bully the world without any strong oppositio
.

[Star Wolf]

Well that brutal and lawless dog-eat-dog world you described is not what Anarchy really is, but I see what you are trying to say.

Both are horrible, but I really wouldn't want to live in a world of no morals and brutal chaos, where you can trust no one and have to kill to survive. Besides, in a world like that based solely on survival using physical and strategic capability, I'd probably just get raped, murdered, and then eaten on the first day.

So I'd have to choose the fascist regimen, where I at least would be provided with a home, food, and have security. From there I guess I would pay close attention to how the system worked, and figure out how to manipulate it, exploit it, and work my way around it.

[britishboy]

I would not last under anarchism nobody would, under fascism I could live a close to normal life.

[Kurgg2]

Anarchy.

If fascist regime comes to my country, they are likely going to be oppressive towards the foreigner or even mixed children like me, and I'm screwed then.

EDIT: Besides, in anarchy, there is nothing stopping me from rebuilding the society as we know or from creating a socialist society. Though, it is unlikely that people will accept 14-year old boy as their leader, even in a democratic society.

[Miserabilia]

I would not last under anarchism nobody would, under fascism I could live a close to normal life.

Seriously?
You'd choose a life were you get fed and housed but nothing else?
I mean, that would mean you'd be treated like a farm animal.
That's not really a life, a life is where you can actualy DO things and share your thoughts, I'd rather live in anarchy and make something of myself than having to live a life identical to the rest of my country.

[AgentHomo]

If we were to live in a regime of Facist religious right beliefs, I would be killed. I lean so far to the left I consider myself anarchist actually.

[Stronk Serb]

Seriously?
You'd choose a life were you get fed and housed but nothing else?
I mean, that would mean you'd be treated like a farm animal.
That's not really a life, a life is where you can actualy DO things and share your thoughts, I'd rather live in anarchy and make something of myself than having to live a life identical to the rest of my country.

You know how people did illegal things in the USSR and Nazi Germany? They joined the party and climbed up, so they had authority. If someone below says something, it's his word against the word of a respected representative of the party.

[Suave]

In anarchy. I'm just now starting to live life to the fullest and I'd hate to be sorta bounded by the government. I may die if I live in anarchy but at least I could do anything I wanted and survived as long as I could.

[Miserabilia]

In anarchy. I'm just now starting to live life to the fullest and I'd hate to be sorta bounded by the government. I may die if I live in anarchy but at least I could do anything I wanted and survived as long as I could.

This is what I thought too.

[Capto]

Seriously?
You'd choose a life were you get fed and housed but nothing else?
I mean, that would mean you'd be treated like a farm animal.
That's not really a life, a life is where you can actualy DO things and share your thoughts, I'd rather live in anarchy and make something of myself than having to live a life identical to the rest of my country.

Of course I'd live that life. Life is only worth living because it is able to be lived. If there is no life to be lived then there is no life worth living.

[Korashk]

I like how literally 100% of posts ITT calling for full blown anarchy were posted by upper middle class teens living with their parents in comfortable policed suburbs in first world nations. the above post is a good example of the mindset that is required to find anarchy even remotely appealing. predictably, it's born out of a childish desire for rebellion against rules and absolutes combined with ignorance of how societies work and why rules exist.

humans form ordered societies to fend off chaos, because chaos is always bad. that's stupefyingly obvious if you're paying attention. Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union is an excellent example of the horrifying effects that social chaos causes. prior to the collapse of the USSR, its people had lived in relatively stable social conditions - yes the USSR was a police state and although they may not have had "FREEDUM" *cue Micky D's jingle* the order that the state enforced allowed the people to enjoy a sense of security and comfort. after the USSR collapsed, and without the state to enforce that order, Russia was plunged into chaos and the results were suspiciously similar to what I have always claimed would happen in an anarchist society. widespread social dysfunction occurred - increased crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, destruction of the family, human trafficking, a huge child pornography industry, and on and on. abortion rates shot up to as high as three per woman in the 1990s. even today the negative effects are still being felt - Russia is a miserable and depressing place with alcoholism, suicide and drug abuse widespread. if you had been a Russian citizen alive during that collapse, it would have seemed almost like the end of the world. it's therefore not a surprise that a significant portion of Russians favor a return to Soviet Socialism, not necessarily because they are diehard fans of Marxism-Leninism specifically, but because they desire the familiar social order that their country once enjoyed, compared to the relatively chaotic and destabilizing effects of "freedom" and capitalism.

humans need shared morality and a social order to function as a society, as it's one of the things that separates us from other animals. without it, we slide back into our barbaric animal nature and literally eat one another alive.
You may as well just have typed "I don't know what anarchy is" in this post.

[Capto]

Fascist still superior for life.

Not by a stretch of seeing the crisis in Ukraine? Russia is not a good place at all, but it is not as bad as the Soviet Union was, the Unrion with more would-be supressed countries as part of it back then, than today.

No, the Ukrainian debacle is entirely unrelated.

I fail to see how it goes entirely unmentioned and unnoticed that the fall of the USSR and the jarring shock introduction of a capitalist free market led both to rampant corruption and immensely spiraling inflation. In addition, the Soviet Union, as an inherently totalitarian society where the Premier held vast influence, would be extremely difficult to categorize under one vast umbrella statement, as you appear to be doing. I'd be hard pressed to find one respectable historian who could comfortably put Khrushchev and Gorbachev under the same sociopolitical category regarding their individual stances.

[chrisf55]

I live in the United States, so I already live in both.

[sqishy]

Fascist still superior for life.

No, the Ukrainian debacle is entirely unrelated.

I fail to see how it goes entirely unmentioned and unnoticed that the fall of the USSR and the jarring shock introduction of a capitalist free market led both to rampant corruption and immensely spiraling inflation. In addition, the Soviet Union, as an inherently totalitarian society where the Premier held vast influence, would be extremely difficult to categorize under one vast umbrella statement, as you appear to be doing. I'd be hard pressed to find one respectable historian who could comfortably put Khrushchev and Gorbachev under the same sociopolitical category regarding their individual stances.

Yes the Ukranian thing is unrelated my bad there

The first part I get, the second part I did umbrellafy a bit. I'm not a historian

[Capto]

One does not need to be a historian to realize that it is not quite right to put opposites within the same category [regarding the aspect in which the opposites are opposite, of course].