Anarchy vs Dictatorship

Poll

Anarchy vs Dictatorship

In the contemporary era, there has been various debates of justifying whether anarchy or dictatorship were better than the other. Here are a few general descriptions of the two;

Anarchy: Total freedom from an administrative authoritative force, but no form of protection either. There is maximum free will without any sort of government interference, meanings that the government cannot impose aggression on the people, nor defend it from them. Individuals have complete responsibility for their lives

Dictatorship: The government controls all aspects of life and the economy, and the state is regarded as the pinnacle of authority. The state protects its citizens from the aggression of others, but all individuals are at the mercy of those who rule them. All individuals must adhere to the state's laws, with severe consequences if not abided

Which one would you rather live in and why?

Reply 1

miser

I voted for anarchy because dictatorships are by their nature obstinate and difficult to overturn, whereas with anarchy there could at least be a glimmer of hope that people would find a means to cooperate. Flat, anarchic systems are not stable and order will tend to be constructed. In a dictatorship, it is almost impossible to overturn the system without outside influence, whereas in anarchy the construction of order would be a natural process. The question is only what kind of government might emerge from an anarchic state.

Neither are particularly desirable, but anarchy slightly trumps in my view because it at least offers hope for a better society.

Reply 2

Martyn*

Anarchy is simply organised opposition to the status quo. That is a form of political anarchy. Social anarchy is quite different, it is the abscence of centralised or governmental control. The one is another form of control, whilst the other is the affect due to a lack of or complete abscence of control. Social anarchy is an interim of social disorder, it will eventually culminate in control and it may become dictatorial. Political anarchy is organised, it is often what comes after the interim of socially disordered anarchy.

For anarchy to occur there needs to be revolution. This is why anarchy has often been one of the principles of Communism and Marxism. The case of Bakunin is not in any way unique.

Reply 3

Farm_Ecology

I voted for Dictatorship. Both suffer from circumstance, and could be a range of terrible to near perfect. However, dictatorships get things done.

In the worst case scenarios, I would expect a significant proportion of the population to die. With a dictatorship, at least the higher ranked are more likely to be guaranteed improvement in quality of life. Whats more, there is only one group to be wary of, the state.

In the best case scenarios, a dictatorship would completely outshine an anarchy. Resource management, scientific development and so on would completely outpace a disorganized anarchy which would be at the whims of the free market.

Reply 4

BobCat10

I don't agree with the premise of this discussion that a Dictatorship is always a bad thing. There are numerous advantages to having a Dictator, and although there have been no long term successful societies which have used Dictatorship, given the right circumstances it could be a viable alternative to capitalism. Furthermore I don't think that you would ever be able to have sustainable anarchy, due to people's lust for power and other's desire for safety.

Reply 5

Kiss

"Oh and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

Anarchy in the UK!

I saw Alan Moore once support his position as an anarchist by claiming that we originally started out with anarchy, and deviated from there, so anarchy is the most natural state for us to be in. Or something like that. Interesting; but then again he is a guy who worships a model snake because it looks smug, and thinks Northampton is the spiritual centre of the universe.

Reply 8

Rhadamanthus

Dictatorship. Even under your particular description of it, there is always the possibility that this governmental control of "all aspects of life and the economy" could be relatively benign. The dictator you describe could use his iron fist to enforce laws that aren't particularly threatening to anyone. "All individuals must adhere to the state's laws, with severe consequences if not abided" is pretty much what happens even in liberal-democratic systems.

Both anarchism and dictatorship destroy the civil society that allows a free and equitable society to operate, but I've chosen dictatorship purely because of the words you used to describe it.

Reply 9

Rhadamanthus

Original post by tjf8

To Alan Moore, I say ugh ugh. (Sorry, being a caveman is my natural state.)

Reply 10

ChocoCoatedLemons

I voted dictatorship, because whilst I am firmly on the side of civil liberties and rights, anarchy would deny these too. Crime would no longer exist as a concept, however I believe the urge for power and control would swiftly lead to gangs imposing violence as a means of gaining control without an authority to restrict them.

A dictatorship would not have to be necessarily a negative thing. If a ruler came along who controlled everything, but all the laws were brilliant, that would be better than no authority at all.

Reply 11

anarchism101

I guess my name kind of gives my views on this away :tongue:

Reply 12

Plainview

I think he's way ahead of you

Reply 13

PicardianSocialist

"Total freedom from an administrative authoritative force, but no form of protection either. There is maximum free will without any sort of government interference, meanings that the government cannot impose aggression on the people, nor defend it from them. Individuals have complete responsibility for their lives"

Okay, except this isn't anarchism as it has been articulated by any serious political philosopher. I can't find the exact quote, but Proudhon once said that all he was asking for was the rule of law (among other things).

Reply 14

The Mad Dog

Somebody's probably going to shoot me in the head under either so it's a bit of a moot choice. Went for anarchy as I'd at least have some freedom before I got shot.

Reply 15

da_nolo

Original post by The Mad Dog

Somebody's probably going to shoot me in the head under either so it's a bit of a moot choice. Went for anarchy as I'd at least have some freedom before I got shot.

and some chance to fight back

Reply 16

The Mad Dog

Original post by da_nolo

and some chance to fight back

Okay that was worth the mini-necro.

Reply 17

roseabates

Original post by Gwindor

Which one would you rather live in and why?

I voted dictatorship because the chances of anything being done or resolved in an anarchy is slim. I agree the temptations of dictatorship are dangerous however that leads to the debate of whether a dictator can be benevolent. Many would argue Tito was, as despite being marginally authoritarian he was relatively popular and managed to build Yugoslavia's economy up, reestablishing it after WWII; his only mistake being not making a system that could continue to function after his death.

Can dictators be benevolent?