Poll: Anarchy or Totalitarian society

[superstringz]

A totalitarian state will quickly decay from the inside out, leaving a highly vulnerable "water-monopoly empire" as Larry Niven put it, so corrupt and weak that an empire of millions can be utterly trashed by a band of oh say 500 conquistadors. Or Bolshevics. Or angry French peasants. Totalitarianism gets you places like N. Korea, using all of its resources to maintain control through a military so that they fall behind in science, technology, diplomacy, productivity, agriculture, culture, etc.

Anarchy, on the other hand, provides an open field for a new government to be shaped. With a sufficiently vigilant, enlightened [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RomanticismVersusEnlightenment] population (Like east coast N. America, circa 1770) a fairly decent Republic can grow. At the very least, Anarchy provides a reset button, a do over to avoid a dictatorship. It is never intended by any serious revolutionary to be anything other that a transient state.

I vote Anarchy, for the potential it provides.

EDIT: This is NOT to say I'm in favor of anarchy. I actually kind of like the my government the way it is, flawed as it is, and the legal opportunities to improve itself that the constitution provides.

 

[Heronblade]

Totalitarian, every single time

At least by going with that option, my chances for living a halfway decent life are better than average, as opposed to being presented with the oh so glamorous lifestyle of stealing food from others so I can live another week of hoping I don't get jumped and killed in whatever powerless hovel I'm sheltering in.

Also, depending on the leader, a totalitarian government can be the best possible governmental system. Its only problem is that said leadership easily changes hands, possibly to an individual that screws everything up.

 

[Realitycrash]

Exactly what it says on the title. If you could control which one would happen, would you rather be in a totalitarian government or anarchy (note:In the totalitarian, you would be a lowly peasent, not the man in charge).


I think I would rather be in a totalitarian society, because while I like a little freedom every now and then, I would rather be guarenteed that I have a food, clothing, and shelter. Plus, some dictators/kings can be benevolent (though its rare: "Absolute power corrupts absolutly."-Lord Acton)

I'm sorry, but you have to define the examples a lot more. What society are we talking about? Current? Western? Asian? Can I have an anarchic-village in the amazon? How benevolent is this "totalitarian" system? How violent is the "anarchic"-system? The questions are endless..
Neither totalitarian nor anarchy is necessary a very bad thing, if everyone are nice towards eachother, etc.

I guess a pure totalitarianism, where one person has ALL the power. (think "1984") while the Anarchy would be pure anarchy, where you could do ANYTHING you wanted. You could rape, pillage, and plunder, and if you dont get shot in the process, they cant touch you.

Eh, neither are very stable "governments", A totalitarian government will fall because it opresses its people. An anarchic-system will create a new government, however basic, even going so far as to go back to tribeal systems.

 

[MammothBlade]

Both are pretty bad. Though I would rather have anarchy, that way you can at least build something out of it. A homestead, a community, without fear of being crushed underneath steel jackboots.

I suppose it depends somewhat on the reasons for anarchy. If it's caused by a general collapse of government, then expect roving gangs of bandits and resource shortages. If there is anarchy due to a peaceful abolition of the state, it wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Astoria]

Well they're both terrible but as a minarchist I'll take that slight step forward than a total about face followed by a mad dash to the starting line and just say anarchy. I'm kinda holding on to the belief that people aren't not just raping, thieving murderers because the law tells them.

Yeah same here. Also, interestingly enough, I read somewhere (probably Cracked) that they did a experiment somewhere in Europe when they removed all speed limit signs. Insted of going crazy people sat below the speed limit previously imposed. Interesting no? I like to believe that for most people they only go against what most people believe is moral when they are desperate to survive. Those who don't seem to go against them with the laws anyway.

 

[Heronblade]

Funnily enough, these are both my ideal choices. If I were to have my pick then I'd choose anarchy.

Failing anarchy I'd go for a totalitarian communist state. I don't care if it hasn't worked out in the past, how long did it take to get democracy the way it is now? It still isn't even that good after all that and it won't be great when we hit ideal democracy. We've given communism what? 50 years? And we've shit on it at every fucking turn, not fucking it up the arse like we have democracy.

No, it would be far better to have a totalitarian true communist state where every man is equal, does his work, buys his food, contributes to society etc. There's room for art too, that's just right wing scare tactics, art has a very firm place in society and isn't limited to the bourgeoisie.

But anarchy first and foremost! Mainly because it can become a true communist state where we aren't constrained by petty laws any more, where we truly are equal and we truly are happy. If that isn't going to happen then we'll force it on everyone.

Where exactly do you get the idea that you can get order out of chaos? If the world is ever in a true anarchic state, we will not see some kind of popular uprising that leads to your personal vision of utopia. What we will see is a lot of starvation, a lot of murder, a lot of petty warlords carving out their own niche at the expense of everyone else. The only way you'd be able to get such a system implemented under those circumstances is by force, which will take a lot of time, an incredible amount of luck, and even more death.

If communism is your goal, you would have far more luck implementing it on a tribal basis. Small individual communities are the only level its proven to work on anyways. Unfortunately, such a system will not support our current means of feeding the masses. Choosing that as your goal would condemn as much as 80-90% of the world to death by starvation.

 

[Lilani]

Totalitarianism, because at least there's a chance of that not working out too bad (as long as the leaders aren't too sadistic).

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Where exactly do you get the idea that you can get order out of chaos? If the world is ever in a true anarchic state, we will not see some kind of popular uprising that leads to your personal vision of utopia. What we will see is a lot of starvation, a lot of murder, a lot of petty warlords carving out their own niche at the expense of everyone else. The only way you'd be able to get such a system implemented under those circumstances is by force, which will take a lot of time, an incredible amount of luck, and even more death.

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean that the world delves into chaotic raping and pillaging of everything in existence, it simply means no government. I was looking more towards small communities of people that eventually grow, I don't expect militant groups to just gang up on the rest of the world, we aren't like that, we aren't savages.

If that doesn't happen then we all go off on our own little adventure and die. I like either one.

 

[Heronblade]

Where exactly do you get the idea that you can get order out of chaos? If the world is ever in a true anarchic state, we will not see some kind of popular uprising that leads to your personal vision of utopia. What we will see is a lot of starvation, a lot of murder, a lot of petty warlords carving out their own niche at the expense of everyone else. The only way you'd be able to get such a system implemented under those circumstances is by force, which will take a lot of time, an incredible amount of luck, and even more death.

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean that the world delves into chaotic raping and pillaging of everything in existence, it simply means no government. I was looking more towards small communities of people that eventually grow, I don't expect militant groups to just gang up on the rest of the world, we aren't like that, we aren't savages.

If that doesn't happen then we all go off on our own little adventure and die. I like either one.

Look, when society collapses, it all boils down to basic essentials. Without higher industry, electricity and petrolium production included, we are reduced to hand labor for farms, with only natural fertilizers. This in turn reduces our ability to produce food by enough that only a small fraction of the current population will continue to be fed. Furthermore, even if we could produce it all, the distribution network is gone, and most of the world's population is living in areas that make for incredibly poor farmland. Starving people get desperate, and violent, FAST.

Even if someone waved a magic wand and everyone settled peacefully into their little communities, with the BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DOOMED TO STARVE TO DEATH already dead and forgotten, I happen to like having roads, electricity, a lifelong career that doesn't involve grubbing in the dirt for tonight's meal, and (mostly) all of the other little trappings of modern society. I enjoy nature more than most, that does not mean however I want to spend the rest of my life like my ancestors.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Anarchy. I get a better chance of gaining power from fighting and aligning with various small clans and other groups then having to fight an all powerful entity.

 

[dragonswarrior]

Out of chaos comes order. Or something like that. ANYWAY...

I pick Anarchy. A state of changing chaos is infinitely preferable to a state of stagnation. Since both would inevitably require a crapload of death and suffering, I'd rather be in the one that still allows people to choose their path if they have the strength to take it.

Which still sucks of course, but this is definitely the epitome of lesser of two evils...

 

[Nezaros]

Anarchy, because it'd be more fun.

 

[Andothul]

Theres no real choice because each one would become the other at some point.

Totalitarianism would eventually devolve into rebellion and anarchy and with Anarchy you would have Totalitarianism just one a smaller community to community scale.

Neither of these would last for very long

 

[Thoric485]

Been watching some documentaries about North Korea lately.

Anarchy, definitely.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Look, when society collapses, it all boils down to basic essentials. Without higher industry, electricity and petrolium production included, we are reduced to hand labor for farms, with only natural fertilizers. This in turn reduces our ability to produce food by enough that only a small fraction of the current population will continue to be fed. Furthermore, even if we could produce it all, the distribution network is gone, and most of the world's population is living in areas that make for incredibly poor farmland. Starving people get desperate, and violent, FAST.

Even if someone waved a magic wand and everyone settled peacefully into their little communities, with the BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DOOMED TO STARVE TO DEATH already dead and forgotten, I happen to like having roads, electricity, a lifelong career that doesn't involve grubbing in the dirt for tonight's meal, and (mostly) all of the other little trappings of modern society. I enjoy nature more than most, that does not mean however I want to spend the rest of my life like my ancestors.

Why on EARTH does society collapse because you've adopted Anarchy? Anarchy =/= Chaos, for the love of God. The use of "Anarchy" to mean "lawlessness" and chaos is a lazy colloquialism, and, if Wikipedia is to be believed, ONLY employed inside the US.

This concept that people are INCAPABLE of working collectively, or being cooperative, or behaving altruistically without a governing body keeping them in lockstep is so unbelievably absurd I'm actually staggered to hear people arguing it. It's not even pessimistic, it's biologically nonsensical. Civilization as we know it would never have existed if this were the case, we'd be too busy sprinting through the undergrowth braining each other and stealing food.

Seriously, the number of people in this thread who would happily trade freedom for security is terrifying. Enjoy your hypothetical totalitarianism, you lunatics.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Since this is a videogame forum, I can get away with using videogames as an example.

Couldn't we say the Fallout universe is an anarchy based society? Factions always form, so in practice, I can't imagine an anarchic state lasting long.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Anarchy, since perfect communism is technically anarchistic, whereas totalitarianism is invariably shit.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

Totalitarianism, if I can pick the person in charge. (It would be King Abdullah II of Jordan, btw.)

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Why does nobody care about considerably less bad, shitty, Liberalism?

Because then the world would make sense. People hate it when the world makes sense. (I suppose you're talking about classical liberalism).

OT-I would go for anarchy because it can develop into minarchy more easily.

 

[Zen Toombs]

so were talking about the V for Vendetta movie?

totalitariansm could work if I werent gay or an ethnic minority...so yeah, might not be so bad

Note that the movie was less "Anarchy vs Totalitarianism" as "American Liberalism vs American Conservationism... IN BRITANIA!". The comic actually describes anarchy vs. totalitarianism and it is FAR less clear cut as in the movie.

OT: Life would be difficult-possibly moreso than in a Totalitarian society- but I would have to choose Anarchy hands down.

Because freedom.

and stuff