-1 vote

Anarchy = Communism

Karl Marx argued that totalitarian central government (Socialism) would enable the masses to share all resources equally, and then the need for a state would eventually just disappear, and this would be utopia (Communism).

This idea of a stateless utopia is exactly the same nonsense that those who preach Anarchy have been spreading here more and more lately.

If we try to completely wipe away all government, then we will simply be clearing the way for complete fascism.

Please grow up and understand that we do need some laws in order to co-exist peacefully within a nation, state, city-state, whatever.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My Point

My point is that the absence of a political hierarchy does not necessitate an absence of law or civil order, as rational people can see the need for organization. To me, this is what the free market embodies, not an absence of a plan, but millions of individual "plans" acting in concert to regulate the flow of resources and productive activity, a spontaneous order. I believe a natural extension of that order, is just law.

In Human Action (Part II) I believe Mises summed it up beautifully:

"The fundamental facts that brought about cooperation, society, and civilization and transformed the animal man into a human being are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and that man’s reason is capable of recognizing this truth... In a hypothetical world in which the division of labor would not increase productivity, there would not be any society. There would not be any sentiments of benevolence and good will." -- Mises, Human Action, P. 144

Man competes, but he also *cooperates* because he can see the increased value of it for himself and those for whom he directly cares.

To sum up, I believe that liberty is the mother of order, not government coercion.

"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.


Then we are in agreement, as I'm also a "proponent of interplanetary anarchy!"

Too funny ...

"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.

he's right

anarchy will never work, and i am getting sick of seeing threads with the word anarchy in it.

I'm sick of mindless statist blather

Much better to just accept that there will always need to be a bunch of people who steal from and kill people under the banner of 'the rule of law', so long as the people doing the stealing and killing are people you're OK with and they follow rules that you agree with, right?

You = Stupid

That wasn't nice, but I couldn't resist.
Now that I've got that out of my system onto what I actually mean:

Communism is absolutely not anarchy. Any sane man could simply look at their definitions and be satisfied beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt that the two concepts were different. Communism presumes collective ownership and (in its idealistic form) that decisions are made democratically. The system calls for a form of political organization! IE a state.

The stateless society referred too in Communist manifestos and other such garbage is a society without nation states-- a world without borders, and full of communists all loving together and singing Kumbyya. This 'ideal' (I use that word loosely, if not outright sarcastically) world would be full of workers who would democratically choose what they wanted to do-- in short A giant communist democracy would rule the world. Hence the stateless society alluded to is NOT, I repeat NOT, an anarchy.

I could go on but I'm tired so I'll just finish out by saying this:
The only common denominator between Anarchy and Communism is one of the fundamental philosophical tenets shared by the individuals who espouse these silly political structures: A belief that all men are good.

Such individuals tend to take this idea, and run with it until they fall off a cliff.

So to be Ultra blunt, your assertion is absolutely stupid.

suck = my dick

Communism does prescribe common ownership of property within its "stateless utopia", which I can admit is different then the general idea of "having no government", but who is to say who will legitimately own what, if anyone can just make up any rules that they want because there is no government?

ITS THE SAME STUPID SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speaking of "STUPID SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Communism does prescribe common ownership of property within its "stateless utopia", which I can admit is different then the general idea of "having no government",

I see we're roughly on the same page about you being wrong.

but who is to say who will legitimately own what, if anyone can just make up any rules that they want because there is no government?

That's an excellent question-- that does nothing whatsoever to bolster your claim: That Anarchy and Communism are similar, let alone the same. In fact, come to think of it, that statement rather ironically illustrates the truth of your earlier statement-- You know, when you admitted you were wrong?

I'm sure you meant to do that on purpose though. Kudos. You have a deft touch, twas a masterful bit of rhetoric, worthy of Mencken himself. But enough about your literary prowess-- back to the meaning of the second portion of your statement:

You ask 'who is to say who will legitimately own what' in a system of anarchy? The correct answer is: You do. There is no government, only various individuals believing what they will and doing as they please; As you are the only 'authority' you answer to in this system, the decision about whose claims of ownership you will acknowledge is up to you.

In the communist system no single individual can own property. This means that a third party is preventing individuals from 'owning' things. A third party that is able to create rules, and use force to force you to obey them is what we like to call a 'government.' As the definition of Anarchy is 'lack of government' it is clear, that communism cannot be anarchy.

Granted, a bunch of communists could get together in an anarchy, and then gang up on folks like you and me in order to deprive us of our property. But as soon as they created an organization in order to to this, they would have created a government and thus ended the anarchy.

PS. The equality in your title is fundamentally flawed; 'suck' clearly cannot be equal to 'my dick' as you have yet to make a decent case for your argument.

What I am saying is that the

What I am saying is that the Communist form of idiocy is only slightly different than the Anarcho-Capitalist form of idiocy.

Communists believe that people can effectively share common ownership over everything, without common law, while Anarcho-Capitalists believe that people can effectively respect each others private property and individual rights, without any common-law.

Both examples would quickly amount to the exact same chaos, which probably has something to do with the fact that the word "anarchy" also means "chaos".


"if anyone can just make up any rules that they want because there is no government?"

You shall not kill, enslave, steal. You shall respect the life/liberty/property of others.
If you respect that, I care not what rule you make.
You can decide to have your own government if you want. But you won't be able to impose it on me.

Brother, if all law were to

Brother, if all law were to somehow disappear, then the ensuing shit-storm is what you would have to worry about, not me.

Maybe you and your family would survive, maybe they would not, who is to say?

The point is that it would be preferable if we could just restore legitimate law and order, instead of ever having to worry about that sort of thing.


I'm not asking for all laws to disappear. Anyway they can't.
Natural laws like the laws of physics are eternal.
It is the same when you use force against any living creature, they will defend themselves, it is all natural.

Anarchy is not something without laws. It is something where human laws are not above God's law. It is pure freedom.

By respecting the life/liberty/property of others your respect their liberty. That is why you can not impose your laws or your government on them. They should have the choice to say: "yes I accept this to be my government." or "no, I don't."
The only thing you can demand from others is for them to also respect your life/liberty/property.

You shouldn't find this horrible. Because as long as your respect my property, you can do whatever you want on your property. You can create a socialist government there with some friends if you want.
Is that not enough to please you ?

But he's right in the sense

that anarchy will never work.

I wouldn't say never...

but its highly impractical.

Welcome, and I do hope you grow up soon

It takes a while to understand that the promise of liberty is NOT a promise of utopia. If you REALLY delve, you may come to understand that the word "anarchy" has been used in our society interchangeably with "chaos" and has taken on a connotation it does not have, based upon the etymology of the word. Some prefer the term "minarchy" to describe a liberated world where Individual Sovereignty is properly understood and practiced. It does NOT mean lawless, it means without a ruler.
If you are really just a newbie and need to get up to speed, jump into the deep end and look into Lysander Spooner. I would not expect you to understand or grasp all he says on the first read, but being exposed to his works FIRST will give you an interesting perspective as you read other things.
If you are really just a troll, better luck next time.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

When I use the word

When I use the word "Anarchy" I mean: "a society with no collective rules".

This is the basic political meaning of the term "Anarchy", and it is also identical to the utopian nonsense that Karl Marx preached would come about through "Communism".

"Society without government" is a theme also found in a precursor to Communism, the Bavarian Illuminati, which was the precursor of the Jacobin movement.

You need to realize that the idea of Anarchy makes no sense, and the only reason that it was ever invented in the first place, was so that fascists could mess around with populations that they needed to subjugate.

The meaning of words has nothing to do with your opinion.

Anarchy means what it means, if you mean "a society with no collective rules" that is what you ought to say.

People have this quaint notion that their opinion has value equal to a fact. It does not.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

I use the word anarchy to

I use the word anarchy to describe "a society without collective rules" because that's basically what the fucking word means.

If you have a better explanation of the word, then why don't you stop acting like such a prick and just explain it already???

Isn't Heaven anarchy ?

Isn't Heaven anarchy ?
No rules but the rules of God.

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."

(John Adams, 2nd US President)


One guy making all the rules? Seems to me Heaven would clearly be a dictatorship.

It's not a guy, it's God

It's not a guy, it's God :)

And you are not obliged to follow them. God gave us free will. If you don't like his rules you can leave his Kingdom in peace. He will not force you to stay and to obey his rules. He is peace and wisdom and king of Heaven.

Personally I love his rules, and I don't need a governement to tell me to respect them or, most probably, to disobey them.

Yah, I'm not obliged to follow them in the same way...

I'm 'not obliged' to follow Uncle Sam's rules.

I've perused the old testament and I seem to recall him turning people into Pillars of Salt for pissing him off. I mean for god sakes, he drowns the whole world because simply because they crossed him. To put it bluntly, God is violent, unstable, and ought not to be crossed-- pretty much the only thing that separates him from modern day middle-eastern dictators is his decision to sport a white beard rather than a bushy mustache.

PS. As the whole universe is his Kingdom, the offer of clemency for for those who leave it is nothing more than a sick joke.

But if you don't follow them

But if you don't follow them you will be roasting in hell for eternity..... Doesn't sound like "free will" to me. It's only free will if you can choose without an axe hanging over your neck.

Doc Holladay
Nashville, TN


Truth is treason in an empire of lies.


Will it be God that would harm you this way ?
No !
Does he threatens you to accept his offer ?
No !

He lets you make your own choice. He does not threatens. He does not impose. That is free will.

Now if you can't find a better offer than getting "peace, happyness and liberty for eternity" that is your own problem ;)

Why would anarchy (complete freedom) lead to fascism?

I don't understand the logic to that idea.

I see one political scale, with anarchy (complete freedom) on one end and tyranny (complete subjugation) on the other. Libertarians fall at the end of the scale close to anarchy. Democrats, Republicans, Communist, and Fascists fall closer to the tyranny end of the scale. We have considerable excess government (force) used against us at this point in history.

Any government is force. Some see government as necessary because force is seen as a way to protect against those (foreign or domestic) who intrude on freedom by using force themselves instead of using voluntary association. I don't know to what extent that we could solve the problem of dealing with aggressors (foreign and domestic) by voluntary means rather than using government force against the peaceful portion of the population. Ron Paul advocates a limited amount of government force be used which is certainly better than the ubiquitous use of government force we have today.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

It's just a really utopian

It's just a really utopian idea (good place, no place) that doesn't make any sense, and could not be sustainable in any way.

Any existing tyrants would surely take full advantage of a complete lack of all common law, and if no tyrants existed at the time, then they would surely develop themselves very quickly.


Fascism and Communism are both corporate governments, the difference being, Fascists believe God has a hand in the affiars of men, and Communists believe God has no business in government.

Anarchy is like a goldfish bowl, as long as food is easy and the water stays clean, everyone plays together. The minute the food stops and hunger drives, the small fish become food. It's nature.

Donner party I give as an example. So anarchy is great in a gated community or such; other than that, the rule of the jungle is the default without a net.

I think that common law

I think that common law built around the protection of individual rights, with the smallest government possible, would be the "fish bowl" which would allow people to peacefully co-exist.


first thing to realize is that 90% of all arguments are definitional.

people argue about the meaning of a word.

case in point. anarchy.

one person has one set of ideas in his head when the word anarchy flashes across the brain.

another person has an entirely different set of ideas.

then they spend the next hour and a half debate on which set most correctly reflects the word.

this is why all arguments, in order to get anywhere, must have their terms defined by involved parties.

someone new comes along and says "AH HA!!!! CAT REALLY ISN'T A 4 LEGGED FELINE, IT'S A BOVINE WITH 6 HOOVES"

starts a big ole uproar, and everyone looks at the moron like "huh?"

this is called getting people's attention by making up your own vocabulary.

the other problem that i see happen 99% of the time is people take their own views and incorporate them into a logical picture with people executing their vision in pragmatic and rational fashion.

yet when it's time for them to frame the other guy's position, they take everything to a theoretical extreme, a theoretical extreme that is not only highly unlikely, but physically impossible in the known universe.

any person with a modicum of critical thinking skills should realize that any theoretical framework devised by the minds of men, and then articulated into words & language, language being the imprecise abstraction of reality, will make absolutely NO SENSE when taken to the extreme.

there is no pure anything.

no pure anarchy, no pure democracy, no pure republic

no pure anything, for one because it's not factually possible.

and secondly it's not possible because the language itself fails to describe that pure state (that cannot exist).

Getting all worked up about a utopian anarchy

is kind of like the skinny guy who ways 115lbs sopping wet, who plans to work out 30 minutes a day...."I dunno, I don't want to get TOO muscular"


The question is how much government...

and where it is located. As I understand it, anarchy is not a society of no government, rather it is a society or self regulated individuals. Communism is centralized control, force through economy, and rigid intellectual control. Yes, the "non-state" of communism is fascism, control by corporation; government corporation, it's all about a false economy.
However anarchy is decentralized government, self rule and therefore, moral requirement to respect individual sovereignty and open (free) market economy. I think anarchy is very interesting; I believe that a deep understanding of Liberty naturally sends one down a path parallel to, but not quite on, the path to anarchy. Self regulation is the key. It is fragile, relying on common respect and moral (not religious) structure. The ability to fully self regulate is seemingly impossible, so we fall back to allowing some central government, but both anarchic and republic forms of government require constant vigilance on the part of its members to protect rights from emaciation, and to constantly disperse the reunion of centralized government into an unwieldy nationalistic cancer.
So, I guess we need some (as little as possible) central government until we can learn that we don't. However, what we always need is individual sovereignty. Our only option at any time is to exercise our Liberty as proof of our sovereignty.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

Anarchy is the most evolved

Anarchy is the most evolved political system possible, but it is pretty much an impossibility. Pretty much all states of Anarchy in history have been short lived, and nearly immediately resulted in either Feudalism or "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...", Ie just a changing of the guard.

However, it IS something that we as a people should strive for. It's a worthy goal, even if 100% unobtainable. There are 2 main problems with the feasibility of Anarchy. The first one is, pretty much everyone is a Libertarian at heart. Nobody wants to be told what to do. They just want someone to tell everyone else what to do instead. A true Libertarian doesn't just champion and demand his own civil liberties and natural rights, he equally champions and defends those of others as well.

The other problem is you have to figure out a way of curing "stupid". All I have to do is take a look around and the way people drive their cars, and I can pretty much conclude that curing stupid isn't going to be a reality anytime soon.

There are a lot of people that clamor for Liberty, but not a lot of people know what Liberty really is. I can tell you that God is pretty much an Anarchist. He LOVES Liberty. But that is if you know that Anarchism is God's idea of the abolishment of Man's Law. You can't abolish God's Law or Nature's Law, even if you tried, and no body talks about abolishing God's Law's, because they know they can't and inherently, everybody knows God's Law's anyway.

There's a reason why God loves Liberty. It was one of the first things he gave us, right after he gave us life. Sure, there's a cute little story designed for simple minded people about the Garden of Eden and the apple and all that, but that was the part of the story where God tells us that he gave us the gift of reason, which is a unique gift magnitudes beyond any other creature on this planet. He gave us the ability to know right from wrong, and to be able to choose.

There was a reason for this. The reason is that Liberty is ultimately about the ability to do Good. Liberty CANNOT be about the ability to do Evil, because evil things such as lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, taking advantage of or enslaving or oppressing another one of God's people is what leads to Tyranny. The people wont stand for it, because they know its wrong, will in turn look to each other to solve the problem by creating Man's Laws.

The other reason why God loves Liberty is because he wants us to be free so that we may experience and understand everything there is to know about the world that He created for us. He gave us a beautiful gift! A beautiful planet with all the resources we need, and even if we were to mess this one up, he thought ahead and gave us an entire universe. If you count how many galaxies there are out there, how many stars, and how many planets, you can pretty much get an idea that God wanted us to be around for a very long time. The reason why God's Laws are important is simply because while creativity may come from Chaos, it would have been impossible to create a universe like this one where life existed without the existence of Law, albiet physical law of some kind. Because this Law exists, there is certain ways in which the universe is BOUND to work. That foundation is the foundation of all Laws. Attempts to violate these laws, are destructive to the universe, society, and a sin in the eyes of God. They are a sin not just because God says so, they are a sin because they are destructive to God's creation and to the Liberty in which he gave every single one of us.

Liberty is important also because Love and Appreciation and Faith are important to God. If your father gave you the most awesome gift for your 16th birthday, and you acted like you didnt appreciate it or didnt respect it or didnt take care of it, how do you think he would feel? I mean like THE most awesome gift, like a Lambo or something. God gave that to us. He gave us the most awesome gift. Life and a beautiful planet and Liberty.

Liberty because you need to learn and appreciate everything on this world on your own to appreciate the awesomeness of the gift. Not just the beautiful tree, or the canyons or the mountains majesty .. its everything else as well such as the laws of physics and nature that allow us to grow our own society and create our own things, or beautiful things like music and art, which are all fundamentally based on Laws that God created as part of the universe. He wants us to explore, and learn and grow, and prosper so that we can look back and appreciate all the little things he thought about for us and be amazed by them and ultimately express that as love and appreciation for God.

But Liberty because no one can tell you things things. They are things that must be learned on their own. BELIEF is not believing what other people tell you is true, BELIEF is believing what you know to be true, what you have discovered on your own, objectively, and reasoned of your own free will that God gave you.

Organized religion has somewhat messed things up. Its full of ritual and dogma but those are there for a reason as well because not all of God's people have the mental capacity to reason so philosophically on this level, but yet God's Laws must still be obeyed. So he gives them to us in ways that can be comprehended by even the simplest of people. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Plain and simple. There it is. OK. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. While I may have the gift of intellect that Thomas Jefferson had, Bubba down there at the bar near the tracks might not have been so lucky. So thats why religion exists in the forms that they exist, although I do believe that they have been somewhat corrupted by Man over the years to suit his own evil interests, but the main point of religion is to teach God's Laws to man because they are HOW the world works and what should be followed in order to result in a healthy, vibrant, and FREE society for Man.

On another level, at least the belief in God and God's Laws are important, philosophically speaking. There is an inherent problem with having too much faith in Man's Law. That being that it is implied that whatever is not expressly denied, is therefore legal and premissible .. afterall, we are supposed to be FREE right? And further more, that something is "OK" even if it is illegal, as long as I don't get caught.

Unless someone has strong moral convictions on their own that they will faithfully believe, a belief in God is healthy because there is always the fear that there is a final arbitor that will judge for your words and your actions in this life. Asking for forgiveness and believing in Jesus Christ is not enough. If you don't love God enough to follow God's laws .. that is where the FAITH really comes into play.

Now, if you can create a world like that .. where people love each other and respect each others rights and liberties, then you can have your Anarchy. But to start systematically dismantling government in the hopes of achieving Anarchy, is the wrong way to start.