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?
Side Score: 31
Side Score: 26
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Side: Socialism Serves Basic Needs Better
Anarchy does specifically not rely on people to want what is best for society. In fact, socialism does. This is why we have numerous records of failed socialist societies - the U.S.S.R, Venezuela, etc - while the societies coming closest to anarchy have been very stable (google Zomia).
Under anarchy, people will enter into voluntary agreements for protection from harm by others, leading to effective and mostly non-violent policing by private security providers. Unlike the police we know under democracy, these will have every incentive to protect their customers and employees.
Even greedy people are, under anarchy, only able to obtain the objects of their desire through voluntary means. They will have to produce something of value to others to become rich. While under socialism, you only need to rise up in the party and you will have the power to steal and rob - that is, obtaining wealth by removing wealth from others.
Health care and other vital services would obviously be well provided under anarchy: everyone needs them, so there would be high demand and sharp competition to provide the best services most effectively. Again, this is different from what we see under democracy - so called "public" health care is extremely inefficient and uncaring, often leading to people dying simply because this has no consequences for anyone.
So anarchy is in fact the best way to secure robust and beneficial social structure including a network of vital services.
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.
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.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Socialism Serves Basic Needs Better
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.
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.
Anarchy-> Tribalism/Primitive communism-> Feudalism->Oligarchy -> Democracy-> Populist socialist state-> Communistic state->????-> Profit!!1!