CreateDebate


Debate Info

30
26
Anarchy Socialism
Debate Score:56
Arguments:22
Total Votes:74
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Anarchy (12)
 
 Socialism (10)

Debate Creator

ta9798(310) pic



What is better, Anarchy or Socialism?

The choice is between only the two and on a clean start(no transition from some other government). In their respective visions which would be better?

Anarchy

Side Score: 30
VS.

Socialism

Side Score: 26
5 points

I made one like this, except it was Basic Dictatorship vs. Anarchy.

Since Socialism isn't as specific as Communism, i'm gonna treat it like it's Anarchy vs. Communism.

The issue depends on the individual itself. Some people rather do their own thing and protect themselves and think the way they want to think, while others rather feel safe and not care if their entire life is controlled.

Me, myself, would rather fight to survive than have a government control what i wear, watch, read, listen to, and my job. I'd rather feel a sense of accomplishment and individualism than have some asshole say "Become an atheist or you hang from a tree". Hell, I'm an agnostic, and it would still sting to just become an atheist.

Anarchy of course will eventually lead to tribalism of some sort. People will help eachother get food and supplies, leading to small societies. Anarchy itself really can't last very long, while a dictatorship (with no other influence) can last for an extremely long time.

now, Anarchy vs. Basic Socialism... i guess socialism... but what kind of a choice is that? would have been better if it were Libertarianism vs. Socialism.

6 years ago | Side: Anarchy
2 points

OK, as there hasn´t been anyone so far who really supports anarchy, I would like to clarify an important distinction: anarchy generally means there´s "no souvereign authority" that could command other people even against their will. It does not mean, as most people think, that there should not be any kind of social and political organization at all! Anarchy, as proposed by its main theorists (Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.) seeks a social organisation, that provites satisfaction to all (not only basic) needs of the people. But as Anarchy defeats oppression and hierarchy, this is achieved through mutual exchange-networks of small autonomous groups, which take their decissions by consensus. A political principal also known as subsidiarity. Actually the socialist Russian revolution also was planed to install such a kind of political system - a union of councils (russ.: sowiet) - this is where the former name of the russion state comes from: the Sowiet Union. But as a violent revolution always brings up violent leaders, this system was corrupted by Lenin, Stalin and Trotzkies red army ... actually simply killing all the real socialists ...

And historically it is exactly this understanding of revolution that divided Marx and his supporters, the authoritarian socialists, from Bakunin and his supporters, the libertarian socialists, or anarchists in the first international labor federation. The anarchists thought there could not be a successfull revolution, if it would not keep its principles of equalness and non-hierarchy even during revolutionary violence. And as history shows, they where right!

But still, for sure, it remains an open question, wheather people would be able to interact socially efficient, if they were left without any repressive government, giving them obligatory rules and punishing thouse who breake such rules. But again: Anarchry does not propose a total lack of any kind of rules! - Just the rules would have to be generated by the people themselves.

To come to an end: As most anarchists would have called themselves socialists as well, the question should be rather: livertarian socialism vs authoritarian socialism?

5 years ago | Side: Anarchy

I would much rather live in anarchy than communism!

communism is opression & anarchy is total freedom.

5 years ago | Side: Anarchy
2 points

im with you brother, anarchy! anarchy! anarchy is chaos, and chaos is order, thus anarchy works.

3 years ago | Side: Anarchy
Cerin(201) Disputed
0 points

How is it "total freedom" to be murdered by someone with out consequence, because there'd be no police to enforce the law during anarchy?

5 years ago | Side: Socialism
loganwhite(51) Disputed
4 points

how is being murdered by the police any amount of freedom? if they see fit, socalist police can lawfully kill you, so yeah, anarchy is better.

3 years ago | Side: Anarchy
Justagirl(10) Disputed
1 point

Anarchy isn't complete disrespect and empathy towards your peers and the people around you the point is to work together and find common ground, to build a community where there's no need for murder or government. It's better than being controlled by the government with corrupt trigger happy cops. Power corrupts, when you're put on a level above everyone else you're more likely to be corrupt. With anarchy it's classless and everyone is equal

2 years ago | Side: Anarchy
2 points

anarchy is the original democracy, everyone loves democracy, but hates the government, anarchy is democracy without government

3 years ago | Side: Anarchy
2 points

Life is natural anarchy. We just try to organize it. We need to re-introduce anarchy into our society.

3 years ago | Side: Anarchy
1 point

This is a pretty complicated question... I'm gonna go with Buckwild's interpretation, and measure the systems according to how they fulfill Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

I think Socialism is definitely better now. For people who need government, but have collectively moved past the ultimately empty rapacity of Capitalism, Socialism could work. But to get everyone to agree to this sort of living would require a bit more education and wisdom: why this might work, if we are all into it together, and why we'll be happier off with what seems like less. Anarchy requires more of this collective wisdom, as well a level of interpersonal trust and responsibility that I think is incredibly rare right now.

I'm not sure I can give a coherent answer, really. How about: No government will truly work as long as resources are forseeably contested.

EDIT: Shit, I forgot to say why I chose Anarchy: I think in the long run, if things go well, Anarchy will be the ideal form of government. But for now, the issue is which one is the most practical, not the most desirable.

6 years ago | Side: Anarchy
5 points

While the ultimate end, a society that is best for its people is similar for both systems i think that socialism would be better because of its sustainability. An anarchist nation relies on the ability of people to always want what is best for society as well as using common sense and that is something that i don't think is possible in our currant or past paradigms of thought.

A socialist system would be best because it provides structure that humans rely on and provides the support that is required to survive. a socialist system would provide such vital services as universal health care and public education. a socialist system would ensure or work to ensure that wealth is properly distributed,(not necessarily equal but fair) and earned.

I would like to try living in both systems but that probably won't happen and i think that more would be willing to live under socialism because it is at least understood more than anarchism and it provides structure for those who need some dependence.

6 years ago | Side: Socialism Serves Basic Needs Better
3 points

Take the best of both worlds, it's known as Libertarian Socialism.

5 years ago | Side: Socialism
2 points

I say Socialism because absolute freedom plus human nature could produce

some scary results. I think there would be far more potential for crime in a

society run by total Anarchy. I think humanity needs some kind of stucture.

I'm not saying that Anarchy produces crime, I'm saying who knows what it

would produce? What services would Anarchy produce? At the end of the

day it's whether I have food or availability of medical care that I'm really

concerned with. Would Anarchy be as reliable at provideing me with the

necessities of life? I think under Socialism we all have more oppertunity to

work together to produce what is needed to sustain life.

5 years ago | Side: Socialism
2 points

If I wanted to live in anarchy, I'd move to Somalia.

I'd prefer to live in a world where people work together for common ends (socialism), instead of one where it's dog-eat-dog and only the strongest or most ruthless survive.

5 years ago | Side: Socialism

Socialism has more order and safety guarantee.......................................................

2 years ago | Side: Socialism
0 points

Think about this question from the perspective of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Socialism would undoubtably do a better job addressing the basic physiological and safety needs.

There would be no safety in a nation or world governed by anarchy.

Supporting Evidence: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (en.wikipedia.org)
6 years ago | Side: Socialism Serves Basic Needs Better
0 points

Honestly I believe Socialism is better in theory. How could you go wrong with getting pretty much everything you need? I'd love for the government to provide me with all the necessities in life. Sadly in Anarchy their is no law or order, and chaos would ensue.

6 years ago | Side: Socialism
loganwhite(51) Disputed
2 points

to consult the chaos theroy, anarchy is chaos, and chaos is order, socalism is systematic disorder, with ever increasing force needed to keep socalism in check

3 years ago | Side: Anarchy
Cinderella99(6) Disputed
1 point

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. – Barry Goldwater (1964)

3 years ago | Side: Anarchy
0 points

I have said this about 1000 times on this site, anarchism cannot exist. In the same way that perfect socialism cannot exist. In theory though, socialism beats the hell out of anarchism.

5 years ago | Side: Socialism
loganwhite(51) Disputed
2 points

anarchism did exist, ancient tribes helping eachother out, they didnt have a stock market fool!

3 years ago | Side: Anarchy
JayAr(179) Disputed
3 points

The communist manifesto described that as 'Primitive Communism', tribes also fought until one gained power over a large area (or teamed up in a coalition to fight aggressive tribes). Then it was split into districts where a tribe leader (now king) gave power to chieftains (now nobles) over said districts, after a time the nobles gained power and to prevent war set up a council. The king's power diminishes over time and more goes to the council, the council then allows people more freedoms in order so that the council is viewed more favorably. Then the people after getting this morsel of freedom demand more, and either through the council giving it or the people revolting a democracy is put into place. Parties form in the democracy and then start to manipulate the people to vote for them. Then one day a single group has an idea, to make it so that the happiness and well being of society must be maximized. They either get there through revolt, or democratically (both by populist efforts). This new government makes it so that things are spread pretty fairly among the people, over time this gets to where everything is shared equally.

TL;DR

Anarchy-> Tribalism/Primitive communism-> Feudalism->Oligarchy -> Democracy-> Populist socialist state-> Communistic state->????-> Profit!!1!

3 years ago | Side: Socialism


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.