Anarchy vs Dictatorship

Watch
Poll: Anarchy vs Dictatorship
Anarchy (28)
59.57%
Dictatorship (19)
40.43%
Gwindor
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
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?
1
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
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.
1
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
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.
1
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
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.
1
reply
BobCat10
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
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.
0
reply
Kiss
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
"Oh and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

Image
2
reply
Flibble22
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
Anarchy in the UK!
0
reply
Plainview
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
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.
0
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
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.
0
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 years ago
#10
(Original post by tjf8)
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.
To Alan Moore, I say ugh ugh. (Sorry, being a caveman is my natural state.)
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
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.
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
I guess my name kind of gives my views on this away
0
reply
Plainview
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 8 years ago
#13
I think he's way ahead of you

Name:  alan-moore.jpg
Views: 946
Size:  213.3 KB
1
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
"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).
0
reply
The Mad Dog
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
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.
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
(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
0
reply
The Mad Dog
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
(Original post by da_nolo)


and some chance to fight back
:lol:

Okay that was worth the mini-necro.
0
reply
roseabates
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(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?
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (171)
44.07%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (43)
11.08%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (32)
8.25%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (83)
21.39%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (37)
9.54%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (22)
5.67%

Watched Threads

View All